Bava Kamma 95 - Shinui koneh

Very exciting sugya.

A beraissa on 95a states:
"If one stole a ewe and sheared it or it gave birth, he pays the value of it and its shearings or offspring, according to Rabbi Meir.
Rabbi Yehudah says the stolen animal is returned 'b'eineih', as it is.
Rabbi Shim'on says we view it as if it were monetarily evaluated."

On 95b, there is a machlokes amora'im regarding the difference between the two latter shittos:

According to Rav Zevid, they argue over appreciation in the value of the animal that is still attached to the animal.
Rabbi Yehudah holds that attached appreciation belongs to the robbed, as the animal as it is *right now* is returned to the robbed, while Rabbi Shim'on holds that the attached appreciation belongs to the robber, as the robber need only return the value of the animal when it was originally stolen.
Both opinions argue with Rabbi Meir, who says that even detached appreciation is returned to the robbed.

According to Rav Papa, they argue over the deduction to the compensation that the robber keeps.
Rabbi Yehudah holds that attached appreciation belongs to the robber, as the animal as it was *at the time of the robbery* returns to the robbed, while Rabbi Shim'on holds that the attached appreciation belongs to the robbed, with the exception of a fraction (dependent on local custom, e.g., a third) that reverts to the robber as compensation for his expenditures on the animal. According to Tosefos DH Mani, Rabbi Shim'on's opinion is more akin to that of Rabbi Meir than to that of Rabbi Yehudah, in that the robber also keeps only this fraction of the detached appreciation.

To provide an example that shows all of the various shittos in action - if one stole a recently shorn animal, allowed it to grow a full coat of wool, sheared it, and allowed it to grow a second coat of wool, at which case he confessed his crime before the court (to avoid the convoluting issue of keifel penalties that apply only to the principle and not to the appreciation):

Rabbi Meir would say that the robber returns the loaded animal plus the first shearings.
Rav Pappa's Rabbi Shimon would say that the robber returns the value of the loaded animal plus the first shearings, less one-third of each.
Rav Zevid's Rabbi Yehudah would say that the robber returns the loaded animal in its entirety and keeps all of the first shearings.
Rav Pappa's Rabbi Yehudah would say that the robber returns the loaded animal in its entirety, but the robbed must then reimburse the robber for the appreciation of the animal in his custody, and the robber keeps the first shearings.
Rav Zevid's Rabbi Shimon would says that the robber returns the value of the unloaded animal that he originally stole to the robbed, while keeping both the now-loaded animal and the first shearings.

Despite the title of this post, there does not seem to be any dispute over whether or not the changes that the animal undergoes as a result of its wool growth (and subsequent shearing) constitute a shinui that allows the robber to legally acquire the animal (and hence have his legal obligation to the robbed frozen in place at the time of the robbery), as even R' Meir was proven to hold that a shinui effects this change of legal status, only that he holds that Chazal imposed a penalty on the robber to prevent him from profiting from his crime (although admittedly, the gemara doesn't discuss the views of Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Shim'on on this theoretical concept).

I haven't had this much fun since the seven-way battle royale regarding the order of kiddush and havdalah on Yom Tov that falls out on Motza'ei Shabbos, found in Arvei Pesachim.