Bava Kamma 087

1:
The previous mishnah was concerned with the amount of compensation that a thief or robber must pay if the value of what was stolen has appreciated between the time of the theft and the decision of the court in favour of the plaintiff. Our present mishnah is concerned with recompense for something taken by theft or robbery whose value has depreciated subsequent to the theft. We saw in the previous shiur that compensation must be paid according to the value of the article at the time of the theft, which is to the detriment of the plaintiff. The ruling is the same in the event of depreciation, which is now to the benefit of the plaintiff. Many examples are offered by our mishnah.

2:
Sara steals David's prize ox, Goliath. For some reason or other the case only comes to court after some time has elapsed: perhaps it took David a long while to trace the thief or perhaps the wrangling between them in court dragged on and on. In the meantime good old Goliath has aged and can now no longer serve his owner as he used to: he can no longer pull the millstones, for example, nor can he drag the plough. Clearly, Goliath's worth to David has depreciated in the interim. However, once the court finds in David's favour, Sara must pay David compensation according to Goliath's value to him at the moment he was stolen. That value must be assessed by the judges, of course.

3:
The second example offered by our mishnah is that of a stolen bondman. (You must remember that we are dealing here with an Eved Kena'ani and not an Eved Ivri. The latter term was explained in BK059 and the former in BK065.) Sam abducts from David's household one of his bondmen. In the period between the theft and the decision by the court the bondman has aged and can no longer perform the same duties as he was able to perform when he was abducted. Tanna Kamma (the anonymous authority quoted in our mishnah) holds that the same rule applies to the aged bondman as applies to good old Goliath. Rabbi Me'ir disagrees with Tanna Kamma. His opinion is that no compensation at all should be paid! This is because he holds that there are two things that cannot be stolen and must just be returned to their owner 'as is': the two things are land and servants. Regardless of appreciation or depreciation they must simply be returned to their owner. In this matter halakhah follows the opinion of Rabbi Me'ir: the thief says to the plaintiff, 'Here is what I stole, take back what is your's.'

4:
Other examples of depreciation offered by our mishnah all require compensation at their value at the time of the theft. Coins might crack and become worthless or they may be taken out of circulation by the authorities. Produce might rot and decompose (even if the case is heard by the court swiftly). The compensation for the coins or the produce is according to their value at the time of the theft and not according to their present value.

5:
Other examples offered by our mishnah require more detailed explanation. You will recall that terumah is produce that is donated by the farmer to the Kohen (priest) of his choice; this belongs to the priest who must consume it while it (and he) is in a state of ritual purity. If someone steals produce which had been set aside as erumah and it becomes ritually impure while in his possession, it is now useless as terumah. Compensation, however, must be paid according to its value at the time of the theft.

6:
Ḥametz, unleavened food, may not be possessed by Jews during Passover. In order to ensure that people do not hide away leaven during Passover the sages enacted a ruling that any ḥametz that was in the legal possession of a Jew during Passover is forbidden to be eaten even after the festival has ended, for ever. (This is why the sale of ḥametz was introduced, so that the legal possessor of the ḥametz during Passover would be a non-Jew.) ḥametz which remained in the possession of the thief during Passover will be worthless to the plaintiff after Passover, but compensation must be paid according to its value at the time of the theft.

7:
When the Bet Mikdash was still active someone might steal an animal in order to present it as an offering (just as today someone might pray with a stolen prayer book) or, even worse, to offer it for idolatrous purposes. The animal is now of no use to its original owner but nevertheless compensation must be paid according to its original value.

8:
Much earlier on in our study of this tractate we learned that an ox which gores a human being to death must be killed. If David's ox Goliath had gored someone and killed them he must be killed by order of the court. However, meanwhile Goliath is stolen. When recovered, of course, Goliath is of no value to David; but then he was of no value to David when he was stolen because he was to be killed by order of the court. Therefore, in this case too the thief must simply return Goliath to David: 'Here is what I stole, take what is your's.'

In shiur BK 086 I wrote:

Sam steals from Leah her prize ewe, ripe for shearing. By the time Leah discovers the theft wily Sam has sheared the animal's fleece, has prepared it, turned it into wool and made from it a fine winter cloak. The value of the ewe is estimated at 50 dinars; the cloak, however, could be sold for 150 dinars. Leah sues Sam and the court finds against him. Sam must now recompense Leah by paying the value of what he stole with an additional "fine" of 400%. (Remember a sheep must be repaid fourfold.) Does Sam have to pay Leah 200 dinars or 600 dinars?

Hyman Fishman writes:

The Torah text says this payment is only if he kills it or sells it. You do not state that he sold or killed the ewe. Am I missing something here?

I respond:

You have missed nothing! It's wonderful that a participant can spot an error like this. I was looking for an example that would be of greater worth than just simple double repayment. Of course, I should have made Sam kill the sheep or sell it in order to incur the quadruple penalty. That should teach me never again to try to write a shiur while the apartment is turned upside down for redecoration!