(Rava): If a thief stole and improved property, and then sold or bequeathed it, the sale or inheritance takes effect on the increased value (Rashi - a half, third or quarter of it; alternatively, the entire increased value. This is an enactment to facilitate repentance).

Question (Rava): If the buyer improved the land, what is the law?

Answer (Rava): When one sells, he sells all rights he has in the matter. (Just like if the thief improved it, he would get (all or some) of the improvements, also the buyer.)

Question (Rava): If a Nochri (thief) improved the land, what is the law?

Question (Rav Acha mi'Difti): Should we make enactments for Nochrim?!

Answer (Ravina): The case is, the Nochri sold it to a Yisrael.

Question: Still, one who acquired land through a Nochri has no more rights than the Nochri had!

Answer: The case is, the Nochri bought it from a Yisrael thief, and then sold it to a Yisrael.

Do we say that since a Yisrael stole it and now a Yisrael owns it, the enactment applies?

Or, since a Nochri owned it in between, there is no enactment?

This question is unsettled.

(Rav Papa): If Reuven stole a date tree and cut it down, even if he plants it in his own property, he did not acquire it.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: Originally, it was called a date tree, and also now!

If he stole a date tree and made logs out of it, he did not acquire them, for they are called date logs (the name has not been lost).

If he stole logs and made beams, he acquired them.

If he stole long beams and cut them into small beams, he did not acquire them.

If he made boards out of them, he acquired them.

(Rava): If one stole a Lulav and pulled off the leaves, he acquired it. Originally, it was called a Lulav, and now it is leaves.

If one stole Lulav leaves and made a broom (by cutting each leaf in half), he acquired it. Originally, it was leaves, now it is a broom.

If one stole a broom and made it into a rope, he did not acquire it, for he can untie it, and have a broom again.

Question (Rav Papa): If the middle leaf was split, what is the law?

Version #1 - Answer: We may learn from R. Mason, who said that if the middle leaf was removed, it is disqualified.

Suggestion: Also if it was split, it is disqualified. (Therefore, this is a change, and a thief acquires through it.)

Rejection: No, only removal disqualifies it, for then it is lacking.

Version #2 - Answer: We may learn from R. Mason, who said that if the middle leaf was split, it is as if it was removed, and it is disqualified. (end of Version #2)

(Rav Papa): If one stole dirt and made a brick, he did not acquire it, because he can return it to dirt.

If one stole a brick and made it into dirt, he acquired.

Question: We should say that he can make a brick again, so he did not acquire!

Answer: It would be a different brick.

(Rav Papa): If one stole a lump of silver and made a Zuz (coin), he did not acquire, because he can return it to a lump of silver.

If one stole a Zuz and made it a lump of silver, he acquires.

Question: We should say that he can make a Zuz again, so he did not acquire!

Answer: It would not be the same as originally.

If one stole a black (i.e. old) coin and made it like new, he did not acquire;

If he blackened a new coin, he acquired.

Question: We should say that he can make it new again!

Answer: It would be recognizable that it was once blackened.

(Mishnah): The general rule is, all thieves pay like at the time of the theft.

Question: What does this rule come to include?

Answer: It includes R. Ila'a's case. One stole a lamb or calf and it became a ram or bull. He acquires it through this change;

If he slaughtered or sold it, he slaughtered or sold his own animal (he is exempt from four or five).

A man stole a yoke of oxen, plowed and seeded with them, and then returned them.

Rav Nachman: Evaluate the increased value (the owner receives it).

Rava: Are the oxen the only cause of the increased value, and not the land?!

Rav Nachman: I meant that the owner should receive half.

Rava: Still, the stolen object returns intact, like the Mishnah says 'all thieves pay as at the time of the theft'! (Why should the owner profit?)

Rav Nachman: This man has stolen many times, so I want to fine him.

(Mishnah): If a man stole an animal or slaves and they grew old, he pays like at the time of the theft;

R. Meir says, regarding slaves, he can say 'here are your slaves (because slaves are never considered to be stolen).'

If he stole a coin and it cracked, or produce and it rotted, or wine and it soured, he pays like at the time of the theft.

If he stole a coin and it was disqualified, or Terumah and it became Tamei, or Chametz and Pesach came, or an animal and a person slept with it or served it like idolatry or it (received a minor blemish, and) was disqualified from being a Korban, or if it was being taken to be stoned, he can say 'here is your animal.'

(Gemara - Rav Papa): The Mishnah discusses not only an animal that became truly old, rather, even if it became weaker.

Question: The Mishnah says 'it became old'!

Answer: It means, it became weaker in a way that resembles growing old, i.e. it will not get better.

(Mar Kashisha, citing R. Yochanan): Even if he stole a lamb or calf and it became a ram or bull, he acquires it through this change;

If he slaughtered or sold it, he slaughtered or sold his own animal (and is exempt from four or five).

Rav Ashi: R. Ila'a taught that law, not R. Yochanan.

(Mishnah - R. Meir): Regarding slaves, he can say 'here are your slaves.

(R. Chanina bar Avdimi, citing Rav): The Halachah follows R. Meir.

Question: Why did Rav rule like R. Meir against Chachamim?

Answer: A Beraisa switches the opinions.

Question: Why should Rav rule like the Beraisa against the Mishnah?

Answer: Rav also switches the opinions in our Mishnah.

Question: Rather, he should switch the opinions in the Beraisa to conform to the Mishnah!

Answer #1: Rav's text of the Mishnah was like the Beraisa (i.e. unlike our text of the Mishnah).

Answer #2: We switch a Mishnah when two Beraisos teach to the contrary (the following Beraisa, and a Beraisa just like our Mishnah but with the opinions switched).

(Beraisa - R. Meir): If Reuven traded his cow for Levi's donkey, and the cow gave birth, or, he sold a slave, and she gave birth (and the cow or slave was not here at the time):

If one party says, I owned the mother at the time of birth (so the child is mine), and the other party is silent, the party claiming the child gets it;

If both parties are unsure, they each own half the child;

If both parties claim the child, the original owner of the mother swears that he still owned her at the time of birth (and he gets the child), for mid'Oraisa, the one who swears does not pay.

Chachamim say, we do not swear about land or slaves (because slaves are equated to land. Likewise, they cannot be stolen.)

Question: If Rav rules like (the opinion he attributes to) Chachamim, he should say 'the Halachah follows Chachamim'!

Answer: He teaches that according to our text (in the Mishnah), the Halachah follows R. Meir.