Bava Kamma 96: Enhancement and Devaluing While Stolen

At the start of our daf, the rabbis continue their conversation about items that have been enhanced after they have been stolen.  Sometimes those items are then sold.  Who owns those items?  How is value evaluated and how are transactions calculated in different circumstances?  The rabbis also wonder how they might evaluate things differently if the buyer, the robber or the victim were Jewish or Gentile.  They teach us that purchasing rights follow those of the seller - thus if one purchases from a Gentile, one has the rights to possession of that Gentile. 

the rabbis consider stolen items that have been changed and acquired.  Can the item be changed back to its form when it was stolen?  For example, a damaged lulav; earth that has been turned into a brick but not is not acquired so that it can still be returned; silver coins that have been discoloured or that have been turned to a bar of silver.  When are these items considered to be acquired?  The rabbis share a principle: All robbers pay for their stolen items at their value when they were stolen.  This familiar principle is argued yet again.  Rav Nachman tells Rava that he does not want to be judged on his own judgements.  At times, he will penalize a repeat criminal based on the enhanced value of the stolen items even though that is not his obligation.

A new Mishna tells us that animals and slaves will age while stolen, decreasing their value.  In such cases the rabbis argue that Canaanite slaves have never actually left the possession of their 'owners', and thus they have not changed in a way that would have been different if they were not stolen.  Similarly, stolen coins that have cracked, produce that has rotted and wine that has fermented are all compensated for at their value when stolen and not after having lost value.  A number of other stolen items are described similarly: 

• a coin that has gone out of currency
• teruma becomes tamei
• matzah is unused after Pesach
• an animal is disqualified for sacrifice or has been used toward performing a sin
• an animal is to be stoned or gored for its behaviour while stolen

In all of these cases, the robber says, "That which is yours is before you" to the robbery victim.  The stolen item is returned as is.  This is because although the item has lost value, that loss is invisible.

The Gemara considers how to argue one baraita against another.  They also consider compromises in difficult cases, like when acquisition is uncertain.  Sometimes the value of an enhancement - or a new calf, born while stolen - is divided in half.  

When are oaths required?  When are oaths not necessary?  Canaanite slaves and land do not usually require oaths, according to the Rabbis.  Again, they are similar in that possession does not transfer, even when they are 'stolen'.  

Sometimes is seems that the rabbis are benefiting robbers through their leniency.  Why would this be, beyond attempts to directly translate Torah words into halacha?  Perhaps their societies were ones where robbers were poor and in need.  Hopefully we will learn more about what seems to be a difficult inconsistency.