Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

February 5, 2024 | 讻状讜 讘砖讘讟 转砖驻状讚

  • Masechet Bava Kamma is sponsored by the Futornick Family in loving memory of their fathers and grandfathers, Phillip Kaufman and David Futornick.

Bava Kamma 95

If one steals a pregnant animal or a sheep with its wool and it increases in value in the hands of the thief, then gives birth or is sheared, does the thief need to compensate the owner for the increased value as well? Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon disagree. There are two different versions brought of a question that was asked on Rabbi Meir’s approach. The first version is that they ask whether his approach is based on the fact that聽shinui (a change) does not cause the animal to be acquired by the thief or is this a penalty instituted for a thief? Two sources are brought to try to answer the question. The second one successfully proves that it is a penalty. The second version starts with the premise that it is a penalty and questions whether the penalty is only for one who acts intentionally or even one who does it unwittingly. Two sources are brought to try to answer the question. The second one successfully proves that it is only if it is intentional. What is the difference of opinion between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon? Rav Zevid and Rav Pappa each bring different explanations of what is the root of their disagreement. A difficulty is raised against Rav Pappa and resolved and then a braita is brought to support his understanding.

讻讗谉 讘讙讝讬诇讛 拽讬讬诪转 讻讗谉 讘砖讗讬谉 讙讝讬诇讛 拽讬讬诪转 讜讛讗 讗讘谞讟 讚讙讝讬诇讛 拽讬讬诪转 讛讬讗 诪讗讬 讗讘谞讟 讚诪讬 讗讘谞讟


Here, the baraita that rules that one may accept the stolen item is referring to a case where the stolen item still exists. There, the baraita that rules not to accept it even if the robber seeks only to fulfill his obligation to Heaven is referring to a case where the stolen item does not still exist. The Gemara asks: But the incident in which the robber鈥檚 wife told him that he would have to return even the belt, which was the impetus for instituting the ordinance for the penitents, was a case where the stolen item still exists, in which case the robber would be obligated to return it even after the ordinance was instituted. The Gemara answers: What is meant by: Even the belt? The value of the belt, but the actual belt was no longer in his possession.


讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讙讝讬诇讛 拽讬讬诪转 诇讗 注讘讜讚 专讘谞谉 转拽谞转讗 讜讛专讬 诪专讬砖 讚讙讝讬诇讛 拽讬讬诪转 讛讬讗 讜转谞谉 注诇 讛诪专讬砖 讛讙讝讜诇 砖讘谞讗讜 讘讘讬专讛 砖讬讟讜诇 讚诪讬讜 诪驻谞讬 转拽谞转 讛砖讘讬诐 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 驻住讬讚讗 讚讘讬专讛 砖讜讬讜讛 专讘谞谉 讻讚诇讬转讗


The Gemara asks: And is it so that the Sages did not institute an ordinance for the penitent anywhere that the stolen item still exists? But there is the case of a beam, which is a stolen item that still exists, and we learned in a mishna (Gittin 55a): With regard to a stolen beam that the robber built into a building, the Sages instituted that the robbery victim should take its monetary value and not the actual beam because of the ordinance instituted for the penitent, i.e., so that the penitent not be required to destroy his house. This indicates that the ordinance instituted for the penitent is in effect even when the stolen item still exists. The Gemara answers: There it is different. Since in that case there is the loss of the entire building, the Sages treat the beam as though it were not in existence.


讙讝诇 驻专讛 诪注讜讘专转 讜讬诇讚讛 讜讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讙讜讝诇 专讞诇 讜讙讝讝讛 驻专讛 讜讬诇讚讛 诪砖诇诐 讗讜转讛 讜讗转 讙讬讝讜转讬讛 讜讗转 讜诇讚讜转讬讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讙讝讬诇讛 讞讜讝专转 讘注讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讛 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讬讗 砖讜诪讗 讗爪诇讜 讘讻住祝


搂 The mishna teaches: If one robbed another of a pregnant cow, and it then gave birth while in the robber鈥檚 possession, or if one robbed another of a ewe that was laden with wool and the robber then sheared it, he pays the owner the value of a cow that is ready to give birth, or the value of a ewe that is ready to be shorn. In connection with this, the Sages taught in a baraita: One who robs another of a ewe and sheared it, and similarly, one who robs another of a cow and it gave birth, must pay it and its sheared wool or it and its offspring; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: A stolen item is returned as is. Rabbi Shimon says: A stolen item is viewed as though it had been monetarily appraised at the time of the robbery, and the robber pays only that amount.


讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪砖讜诐 讚拽住讘专 砖讬谞讜讬 讘诪拽讜诪讜 注讜诪讚 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讘注诇诪讗 砖讬谞讜讬 拽讜谞讛 讜讛讻讗 拽谞住讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 拽谞讬住


The Gemara clarifies the different opinions in this baraita. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Meir, who holds that the robber returns the animal and its sheared wool or the animal and its offspring? Is it due to the fact that he holds that despite a change, the changed item remains in its place? Despite its changes, the animal always remained in the possession of the robbery victims, and consequently any increase in value belongs to them. Or, perhaps Rabbi Meir generally holds that one acquires an item due to a change in it, and therefore the wool or offspring should belong to the robber by right, but here it is a penalty that he imposes, which forces the robber to return items that are technically his.


诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讛讬讻讗 讚讻讞砖讗 诪讻讞砖


The Gemara explains: In what case does the reasoning of Rabbi Meir make a practical difference? In a case where the stolen item was devalued since the time of the robbery. If Rabbi Meir鈥檚 reason is that despite a change, the changed item remains in its place, it is returned as is, even if its current value is less than what its value had been at the time of the robbery. But if he requires the robber to return the item itself because of a penalty, and by right the robber acquired the animal due to the change, then in this case, where the value decreased, the robber would be required to return what its value had been at the time of the robbery.


转讗 砖诪注 讙讝诇 讘讛诪讛 讜讛讝拽讬谞讛 注讘讚讬诐 讜讛讝拽讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 讻砖注转 讛讙讝讬诇讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讘注讘讚讬诐 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讛专讬 砖诇讱 诇驻谞讬讱 讜讗讬诇讜 讘讛诪讛 讻砖注转 讛讙讝讬诇讛


The Gemara attempts to find a solution to this question: Come and hear what was taught in the mishna (96b): If one robbed another of an animal and it aged while in his possession, consequently diminishing its value, or if one robbed another of slaves and they aged, he pays according to the value of the stolen item at the time of the robbery. Rabbi Meir says: With regard to slaves, the robber says to the owner: That which is yours is before you. The Gemara comments: But this indicates that with regard to an animal that aged while in the possession of the robber Rabbi Meir concedes to the first tanna, and he too holds that he pays according to what its value had been at the time of the robbery.


讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 住讘专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖讬谞讜讬 讘诪拽讜诪讜 注讜诪讚 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讛诪讛 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 拽住讘专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖讬谞讜讬 拽讜谞讛 讜讛讻讗 拽谞住讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 拽谞讬住


The Gemara continues: And if it enters your mind to say that Rabbi Meir holds that despite a change, the changed item remains in its place, then the animal should be returned as it is in the case of the animal that aged, as well. Rather, must one not conclude from the mishna that Rabbi Meir holds that one acquires an item due to a change in the item, but here, in the case of a stolen animal that subsequently was shorn or gave birth, the payment of wool or offspring is a penalty with which he penalizes the robber, so that the robber will not benefit from the increased value of the stolen item?


讗诪专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讚讘专讬讛诐 讚专讘谞谉 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讚讬讚讬 砖讬谞讜讬 讗讬谉 拽讜谞讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘讛诪讛 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 诇讚讬讚讻讜 讚讗诪专讬转讜 砖讬谞讜讬 拽讜谞讛 讗讜讚讜 诇讬 诪讬讛转 讘注讘讚讗 讚讻诪拽专拽注讬 讚诪讬 讜拽专拽注 讗讬谞讛 谞讙讝诇转 讜讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇讗 注讘讚讗 讻诪讟诇讟诇讬 讚诪讬


The Sages say in response: Rabbi Meir鈥檚 reasoning cannot be proven from the mishna, since it is possible to say that Rabbi Meir is speaking to the Rabbis in accordance with the Rabbis鈥 own statement. His statement should be understood as follows: According to my own opinion, one does not acquire an item due to a change in the item, and an animal that was stolen and then aged should be returned as it is now, as well. But according to you, who say that one acquires an item due to a change in it, agree with me in any event that with regard to a slave, he is returned as is. This is because his legal status is like that of real estate, and real estate cannot be stolen. And the Rabbis say to him in response: No, for the purpose of robbery, the legal status of a slave is like that of movable property.


转讗 砖诪注 诇爪讘讜注 诇讜 讗讚讜诐 讜爪讘注讜 砖讞讜专 砖讞讜专 讜爪讘注讜 讗讚讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讚诪讬 爪诪专讜 讚诪讬 爪诪专讜 讗讬谉 讚诪讬 爪诪专讜 讜砖讘讞讜 诇讗 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 住讘专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖讬谞讜讬 讗讬谉 拽讜谞讛 讚诪讬 爪诪专讜 讜砖讘讞讜 讘注讬 诇诪讬转讘 诇讬讛


The Gemara again attempts to find a solution to the question: Come and hear what was taught in the mishna (100b): If one gave wool to a dyer to dye it red for him and he dyed it black, or to dye it black and he dyed it red, Rabbi Meir says: The dyer gives the owner of the wool the value of his wool, since the dyer violated the owner鈥檚 wishes. It can be inferred from this mishna: The value of his wool, yes, he must give it; but the value of his wool and its enhancement, i.e., the amount by which the value of the wool increased because it was dyed, no, he need not give it. And if it enters your mind to say that Rabbi Meir holds that one does not acquire an item due to a change in the item, the dyer should be required to return the value of his wool and its enhancement to the owner, as it never left the owner鈥檚 possession.


讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 拽住讘专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖讬谞讜讬 拽讜谞讛 讜讛讻讗 拽谞住讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 拽谞讬住 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


Rather, isn鈥檛 it correct to conclude from the mishna that Rabbi Meir holds that one acquires an item due to a change in the item, but here, in the case of a stolen animal that was subsequently shorn or gave birth, the payment of wool or offspring is a penalty with which he penalizes the robber, so that the robber will not benefit from the increased value of the stolen item? The Gemara affirms this: Learn from the mishna that this is indeed the reasoning of Rabbi Meir.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛讗 诇讗 讗讬讘注讬 诇谉 诪讚讗驻讬讱 专讘 讜转谞讬 讙讝诇 驻专讛 讜讛讝拽讬谞讛 注讘讚讬诐 讜讛讝拽讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 讻砖注转 讛讙讝讬诇讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘注讘讚讬诐 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讛专讬 砖诇讱 诇驻谞讬讱 讜讚讗讬 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖讬谞讜讬 拽讜谞讛 讜讛讻讗 拽谞住讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 拽谞讬住 诇讬讛


There are those who say: This, i.e., Rabbi Meir鈥檚 reasoning, was never in question for us. Why not? From the fact that Rav reversed the opinions in the mishna on 96b and taught it as follows: If one robbed another of an animal and it aged, or if one robbed another of slaves and they aged, he pays according to what their value had been at the time of the robbery; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: With regard to slaves, the robber says to the owner: That which is yours is before you. Certainly, then, according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, one acquires an item due to a change in the item, which is why the robber pays according to what its value had been at the time of the robbery. But here, in the case of the cow that gave birth or the ewe that was shorn, the payment of offspring or wool is a penalty with which he penalizes the robber.


讻讬 拽讗 讗讬讘注讬 诇谉 讛讻讬 讗讬讘注讬 诇谉 讻讬 拽讗 拽谞讬住 讘诪讝讬讚 讗讘诇 讘砖讜讙讙 诇讗 拽谞讬住 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讜讙讙 谞诪讬 拽谞讬住


The Gemara continues the alternative explanation. When we asked the question, this is how we asked it: When Rabbi Meir penalizes the robber, is it only for one who robbed intentionally, but if one took an item from its owner unintentionally, Rabbi Meir does not penalize the robber? Or perhaps he penalizes even one who took an item from its owner unintentionally.


转讗 砖诪注 讞诪砖讛 讙讜讘讬谉 诪谉 讛诪讞讜专专讬谉


The Gemara tries to resolve this question: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: Five types of monetary claims are collected only from unsold [me岣rarin] property, i.e., property that is still in possession of its owner and has not been sold in the meantime.


讜讗诇讜 讛谉 驻讬专讜转 讜砖讘讞 驻讬专讜转 讜讛诪拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 诇讝讜谉 讘谉 讗砖转讜 讜讘转 讗砖转讜 讜讙讟 讞讜讘 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讗讞专讬讜转 讜讻转讜讘转 讗砖讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讗讞专讬讜转


And these are they: Produce, and the enhanced value of produce. Even if one has the right to the produce of a particular property, or the gain accrued from that produce, he cannot claim this payment from liened property. The Gemara continues with the list of monetary claims collected from unsold property: And one who accepts upon himself at the time of his betrothal the obligation to provide sustenance for his wife鈥檚 son or his wife鈥檚 daughter from a previous marriage; and a promissory note that has no property guarantee, i.e., a document that does not explicitly state that all of the properties of the debtor will serve to guarantee payment of the debt; and similarly, a woman鈥檚 marriage contract that has no property guarantee.


诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 讗讞专讬讜转 诇讗讜 讟注讜转 住讜驻专 讛讜讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜拽转谞讬 驻讬专讜转 讜砖讘讞 驻讬专讜转


The Gemara clarifies: Whom did you hear that says that omission of the guarantee of the sale from the document is not a scribal error? It is Rabbi Meir. There is a dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis with regard to a promissory note that does not contain a property guarantee. According to the Rabbis, it was omitted in error and is always considered as having been written in the document. Rabbi Meir holds that a promissory note that does not contain a property guarantee cannot be used to collect property that has been liened or sold; it can be used to collect only unsold property. This baraita is therefore in accordance with Rabbi Meir鈥檚 opinion. And the baraita teaches that produce and the enhanced value of produce are collected only from unsold property.


砖讘讞 驻讬专讜转 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讻讙讜谉 砖讙讝诇 砖讚讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜诪讻专讛 诇讗讞专 讜讛砖讘讬讞讛 讜讛专讬 讛讬讗 讬讜爪讗讛 诪转讞转 讬讚讜 讻砖讛讜讗 讙讜讘讛


The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances in which he collects the enhanced value of produce? It is a case where one robbed another of a field, and then sold it to another, and the purchaser enhanced it, and it is now leaving the possession of the purchaser because the robbery victim has proved in court that this field is his. When the purchaser collects from the robber who sold him this field, in order to recoup what he had paid,


讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛拽专谉 诪谞讻住讬诐 诪砖讜注讘讚讬诐 讜讗转 讛砖讘讞 诪谞讻住讬诐 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉 讚讗转讗 讘注诇 讗专注讗 讜砖拽讬诇 讗专注讬讛 讜砖讘讞讬讛


he can collect the principal, i.e., what he paid for the field, from the robber鈥檚 liened property that has been sold. But he can collect the enhanced value, i.e., the value of the improvements made to the field, only from unsold property. Why are both of these collected from the robber? Because the owner of the field came and took both his land and its enhanced value.


诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘注诐 讛讗专抓 讚诇讗 讬讚注 讚拽专拽注 谞讙讝诇转 讗讜 讗讬谞讛 谞讙讝诇转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 拽讗转讬 讘注诇 拽专拽注 讜砖拽讬诇 诇讗专注讗 讜砖讘讞讛 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘砖讜讙讙 谞诪讬 拽谞讬住 讗诪专讬 诇讗 讘诇讜拽讞 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 讜讬讚注


The Gemara clarifies: What, is it not speaking of a purchaser who is an ignoramus, who does not know whether property can be stolen or cannot be stolen, and when he purchased stolen land from the robber, he did so unintentionally, since he was under the mistaken impression that this land belonged to the robber who sold it? And even so, the owner of the land can come and take the land and its enhanced value. And if so, one may learn from the baraita that Rabbi Meir penalizes even one who acquires stolen items unintentionally. The Sages say in response: No, it is speaking of a purchaser who is a Torah scholar, and he knew that the robber had no right to sell this land. The purchaser is therefore penalized and is required to return the enhanced value of the land as well.


转讗 砖诪注 诇爪讘讜注 诇讜 讗讚讜诐 讜爪讘注讜 砖讞讜专 砖讞讜专 讜爪讘注讜 讗讚讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讚诪讬 爪诪专讜 讚诪讬 爪诪专讜 讗讬谉 讚诪讬 爪诪专讜 讜砖讘讞讜 诇讗


The Gemara again tries to determine the scope of the penalty: Come and hear what was taught in a mishna (100b): If one gave wool to a dyer to dye it red for him and he dyed it black, or to dye it black and he dyed it red, Rabbi Meir says: The dyer gives the owner of the wool the value of his wool, since the dyer violated the owner鈥檚 instructions. It can be inferred from the mishna: The value of his wool, yes, he must give; but the value of his wool and its enhanced value, i.e., the amount by which the value of the wool increased because it was dyed, no, he is not required to give.


讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讘砖讜讙讙 谞诪讬 拽谞讬住 讚诪讬 爪诪专讜 讜砖讘讞讜 讘注讬 诇诪讬转讘讗 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘诪讝讬讚 拽谞讬住 讘砖讜讙讙 诇讗 拽谞讬住 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


And if it enters your mind to say that Rabbi Meir penalizes one who acquires a stolen item unintentionally as well, the dyer should be required to return the value of his wool and its enhancement to him. Rather, must one not conclude from the mishna that if it was done intentionally, Rabbi Meir penalizes the robber, but if it was done unintentionally he does not penalize him? The Gemara affirms: Learn from the mishna that this indeed is the reasoning of Rabbi Meir.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讙讝讬诇讛 讞讜讝专转 讘注讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讛 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讬讗 砖讜诪讗 讗爪诇讜 讘讻住祝 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜


搂 The Gemara continues its discussion of the baraita. Rabbi Yehuda says: A stolen item is returned as is. Rabbi Shimon says: The stolen item is viewed as though it had been monetarily appraised at the time of the robbery. The Gemara asks: What is the difference between them, since ostensibly they agree that the robber does not return the value of the enhancement to the robbery victim?


讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讘砖讘讞 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讙讝讬诇讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讚谞讙讝诇 讛讜讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 讚讙讝诇谉 讛讜讬


Rav Zevid says: They disagree with regard to enhancement that is still upon the stolen item. The disagreement concerns a case where the enhancement occurred while the stolen item was in the possession of the robber, and when he returned the item it was still enhanced. Therefore, he did not keep any of the enhancement. Rabbi Yehuda holds that the enhancement belongs to the one who was robbed, and Rabbi Shimon holds that it belongs to the robber.


专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 砖讘讞 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讙讝讬诇讛 讚讙讝诇谉 讛讜讬 讜讛讻讗 诇诪讞爪讛 诇砖诇讬砖 讜诇专讘讬注 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 砖讘讞 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讙讝讬诇讛 讻讜诇讬讛 讚讙讝诇谉 讛讜讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 诇诪讞爪讛 诇砖诇讬砖 讜诇专讘讬注 讛讜讗 讚砖拽讬诇 讙讝诇谉


Rav Pappa said that the disagreement between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon can be explained differently: Everyone agrees that the enhancement that is still upon the stolen item belongs to the robber, and here they disagree with regard to whether the robber can keep one-half, or one-third, or one-fourth of the value of the enhancement, and the remainder is kept by the owner of the animal. Rabbi Yehuda holds that the enhancement that is still upon the stolen item belongs entirely to the robber, and Rabbi Shimon holds that the robber takes one-half, or one-third, or one-fourth of the value of the enhancement. In other words, he is treated as a shepherd or rancher and receives the share of the enhancement that local custom dictates be paid to that type of laborer.


转谞谉 讙讝诇 驻专讛 讜谞转注讘专讛 讗爪诇讜 讜讬诇讚讛 专讞诇 讜谞讟注谞讛 讗爪诇讜 讜讙讝讝讛 诪砖诇诐 讻砖注转 讛讙讝讬诇讛 讬诇讚讛 讗讬谉 诇讗 讬诇讚讛 讛讚专讗 讘注讬谞讗


The Gemara cites a proof for Rav Zevid鈥檚 explanation: We learned in the mishna (93b): If one robbed another of a cow, and it became pregnant in his possession, and it then gave birth; or if one robbed another of a ewe, and it became laden with wool in his possession, and he then sheared it, the robber pays according to the value of the animal at the time of the robbery. The Gemara infers from the mishna: If the cow gave birth, yes, he pays the value of the animal at the time of the theft, but if the cow did not give birth and is still pregnant, it is returned as is.


讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 讝讘讬讚 讚讗诪专 砖讘讞 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讙讝讬诇讛 讚谞讙讝诇 讛讜讬 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讚讗诪专 讚讙讝诇谉 讛讜讬 讛讗 诪谞讬 诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉


Granted, according to the explanation of Rav Zevid, who says that according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, enhancement that is still upon the stolen item belongs to the one who was robbed, in accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as the pregnant cow is returned as is. But according to the explanation of Rav Pappa, who says that everyone agrees that the enhancement belongs to the robber, in accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, nor is it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as the robber does not retain any of the enhanced value.


讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 讬诇讚讛 谞诪讬 讻砖注转 讛讙讝讬诇讛 讛讜讗 讚诪砖诇诐 讜讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 讬诇讚讛 讗讬讬讚讬 讚谞住讬讘 专讬砖讗 讬诇讚讛 谞住讬讘 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 讬诇讚讛


The Gemara responds: Rav Pappa could have said to you that the inference is incorrect: The same is true that even if it did not give birth, the robber pays according to the value of the animal at the time of the robbery, and the enhanced value due to the pregnancy is returned to him. And that which the mishna teaches: It then gave birth, cannot serve as the basis for an inference pertaining to this discussion. As the tanna needs to cite that it gave birth in the first clause of the mishna, since in that case he acquires the animal due to the change in its condition, therefore he cites that it gave birth in the latter clause as well, but it need not have given birth. It cannot be inferred from this mishna that an animal that has not given birth is returned as is.


转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讛 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讬讗 砖讜诪讗 讗爪诇讜 讘讻住祝 诇诪讞爪讛 诇砖诇讬砖 讜诇专讘讬注


The Gemara notes: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the explanation of Rav Pappa. The baraita states: Rabbi Shimon says: The stolen item is viewed as though it had been monetarily appraised at the time of the theft, for the purpose of keeping one-half, or one-third, or one-fourth of the value of the enhancement.


讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讻讬 讛讜讬谞谉 讘讬 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 诇诪讞爪讛 诇砖诇讬砖 讜诇专讘讬注 讛讜讗 讚砖拽讬诇 讙讝诇谉 讻讬 诪住诇拽讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讘讚诪讬 诪住诇拽讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诪讘砖专讗 砖拽讜诇


Rav Ashi said: When we were studying in the study hall of Rav Kahana, we were asked a question: According to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says that the robber takes one-half, or one-third, or one-fourth of the value of the enhancement; when we remove the robber, taking the stolen animal from him and paying him a portion of the enhanced value, do we remove him by paying him his share with money? Or, perhaps he takes his portion from the meat of the animal.


讜驻砖讟谞讗 诪讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖诇砖讛 砖诪讬谉 诇讛谉 讛砖讘讞 讜诪注诇讬谉 讗讜转谉 讘讚诪讬诐 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讘讻讜专 诇驻砖讜讟


And we resolved the dilemma from that which Rav Na岣an says that Shmuel says: In three cases, the court appraises the enhanced value for the parties involved in enhancing a field, and they are paid in money rather than by being given a portion of the property, and these are they: A firstborn son who makes payment to a regular son. This is a case where two sons, one firstborn and the other not, inherit a field from their father. Before it is divided, they both work and enhance the field. When the time comes to divide the field, the firstborn son, who receives a double portion, must pay his brother for the enhancement that the latter contributed to the former鈥檚 portion. This payment is given in money rather than land.


讜讘注诇 讞讜讘 诇诇讜拽讞 讜讘注诇 讞讜讘 诇讬转讜诪讬诐


And the second case is that of a creditor who is obligated to a purchaser, i.e., a creditor who collects the debt from lands that were sold by the debtor. He pays money to the purchaser for the enhancements generated by the purchaser but does not pay him in land. And the third case is that of a creditor who is obligated to orphans, i.e., a creditor who collects land from the orphans of his debtor. He must pay them for any enhancements done by the orphans after their father鈥檚 death. This payment is also given in money rather than land.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘注诇 讞讜讘 诇诇讜拽讞 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 砖讘讞 讜讛讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛砖讘讞 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘砖讘讞 讛诪讙讬注 诇讻转驻讬诐 讜讻讗谉 讘砖讘讞 砖讗讬谉 诪讙讬注 诇讻转驻讬诐


The Gemara discusses Shmuel鈥檚 statement. Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Did Shmuel actually say that a creditor gives the purchaser any of the enhanced value at all? But doesn鈥檛 Shmuel say: A creditor collects all of the enhanced value? Rav Ashi said to him: This is not difficult. Here, where Shmuel stated that a creditor does not collect the enhanced value, it was with regard to a case where there was enhancement that reaches shoulders [sheva岣 hammaggia likhtefayim], i.e., the produce that grew due to the improvements made by the purchaser is fully grown and ripened and can now be harvested and carried upon one鈥檚 shoulders. But there, where Shmuel stated that a creditor does collect the enhanced value, it was with regard to a case where there was enhancement that does not reach shoulders, i.e., its growth is not complete.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 诪注砖讬诐 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讜拽讗 诪讙讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讘讞 讛诪讙讬注 诇讻转驻讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗


Ravina said to him: But there were daily incidents of this type, and Shmuel would collect from purchasers even enhancement that reached shoulders. Rav Ashi said to him: This is not difficult.


  • Masechet Bava Kamma is sponsored by the Futornick Family in loving memory of their fathers and grandfathers, Phillip Kaufman and David Futornick.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Bava Kamma: 91-97 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will learn that even if a person pays for embarrassment, God doesn鈥檛 forgive the person till they...
on second thought thumbnail

Dignity & Ownership – On Second Thought

On Second Thought: Delving Into the Sugya with Rabbanit Yafit Clymer Source Sheet Bava Kamma 93, 94, 95 Listen here:...
talking talmud_square

Bava Kamma 95: Rebbi鈥檚 Meir and shinui koneh

The daf explores Rebbe Meir鈥檚 approach to the question of whether change to an object effects acquisition. A question to...
talking talmud_square

Bava Kamma 75: Can a Thief Get Out of Penalties by Coming Clean?!

[Who's Who: Rabban Gamliel and Tavi] The case of witnesses and admission, and when in that timeline one's obligation to...

Bava Kamma 95

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 95

讻讗谉 讘讙讝讬诇讛 拽讬讬诪转 讻讗谉 讘砖讗讬谉 讙讝讬诇讛 拽讬讬诪转 讜讛讗 讗讘谞讟 讚讙讝讬诇讛 拽讬讬诪转 讛讬讗 诪讗讬 讗讘谞讟 讚诪讬 讗讘谞讟


Here, the baraita that rules that one may accept the stolen item is referring to a case where the stolen item still exists. There, the baraita that rules not to accept it even if the robber seeks only to fulfill his obligation to Heaven is referring to a case where the stolen item does not still exist. The Gemara asks: But the incident in which the robber鈥檚 wife told him that he would have to return even the belt, which was the impetus for instituting the ordinance for the penitents, was a case where the stolen item still exists, in which case the robber would be obligated to return it even after the ordinance was instituted. The Gemara answers: What is meant by: Even the belt? The value of the belt, but the actual belt was no longer in his possession.


讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讙讝讬诇讛 拽讬讬诪转 诇讗 注讘讜讚 专讘谞谉 转拽谞转讗 讜讛专讬 诪专讬砖 讚讙讝讬诇讛 拽讬讬诪转 讛讬讗 讜转谞谉 注诇 讛诪专讬砖 讛讙讝讜诇 砖讘谞讗讜 讘讘讬专讛 砖讬讟讜诇 讚诪讬讜 诪驻谞讬 转拽谞转 讛砖讘讬诐 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 驻住讬讚讗 讚讘讬专讛 砖讜讬讜讛 专讘谞谉 讻讚诇讬转讗


The Gemara asks: And is it so that the Sages did not institute an ordinance for the penitent anywhere that the stolen item still exists? But there is the case of a beam, which is a stolen item that still exists, and we learned in a mishna (Gittin 55a): With regard to a stolen beam that the robber built into a building, the Sages instituted that the robbery victim should take its monetary value and not the actual beam because of the ordinance instituted for the penitent, i.e., so that the penitent not be required to destroy his house. This indicates that the ordinance instituted for the penitent is in effect even when the stolen item still exists. The Gemara answers: There it is different. Since in that case there is the loss of the entire building, the Sages treat the beam as though it were not in existence.


讙讝诇 驻专讛 诪注讜讘专转 讜讬诇讚讛 讜讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讙讜讝诇 专讞诇 讜讙讝讝讛 驻专讛 讜讬诇讚讛 诪砖诇诐 讗讜转讛 讜讗转 讙讬讝讜转讬讛 讜讗转 讜诇讚讜转讬讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讙讝讬诇讛 讞讜讝专转 讘注讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讛 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讬讗 砖讜诪讗 讗爪诇讜 讘讻住祝


搂 The mishna teaches: If one robbed another of a pregnant cow, and it then gave birth while in the robber鈥檚 possession, or if one robbed another of a ewe that was laden with wool and the robber then sheared it, he pays the owner the value of a cow that is ready to give birth, or the value of a ewe that is ready to be shorn. In connection with this, the Sages taught in a baraita: One who robs another of a ewe and sheared it, and similarly, one who robs another of a cow and it gave birth, must pay it and its sheared wool or it and its offspring; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: A stolen item is returned as is. Rabbi Shimon says: A stolen item is viewed as though it had been monetarily appraised at the time of the robbery, and the robber pays only that amount.


讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪砖讜诐 讚拽住讘专 砖讬谞讜讬 讘诪拽讜诪讜 注讜诪讚 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讘注诇诪讗 砖讬谞讜讬 拽讜谞讛 讜讛讻讗 拽谞住讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 拽谞讬住


The Gemara clarifies the different opinions in this baraita. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Meir, who holds that the robber returns the animal and its sheared wool or the animal and its offspring? Is it due to the fact that he holds that despite a change, the changed item remains in its place? Despite its changes, the animal always remained in the possession of the robbery victims, and consequently any increase in value belongs to them. Or, perhaps Rabbi Meir generally holds that one acquires an item due to a change in it, and therefore the wool or offspring should belong to the robber by right, but here it is a penalty that he imposes, which forces the robber to return items that are technically his.


诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讛讬讻讗 讚讻讞砖讗 诪讻讞砖


The Gemara explains: In what case does the reasoning of Rabbi Meir make a practical difference? In a case where the stolen item was devalued since the time of the robbery. If Rabbi Meir鈥檚 reason is that despite a change, the changed item remains in its place, it is returned as is, even if its current value is less than what its value had been at the time of the robbery. But if he requires the robber to return the item itself because of a penalty, and by right the robber acquired the animal due to the change, then in this case, where the value decreased, the robber would be required to return what its value had been at the time of the robbery.


转讗 砖诪注 讙讝诇 讘讛诪讛 讜讛讝拽讬谞讛 注讘讚讬诐 讜讛讝拽讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 讻砖注转 讛讙讝讬诇讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讘注讘讚讬诐 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讛专讬 砖诇讱 诇驻谞讬讱 讜讗讬诇讜 讘讛诪讛 讻砖注转 讛讙讝讬诇讛


The Gemara attempts to find a solution to this question: Come and hear what was taught in the mishna (96b): If one robbed another of an animal and it aged while in his possession, consequently diminishing its value, or if one robbed another of slaves and they aged, he pays according to the value of the stolen item at the time of the robbery. Rabbi Meir says: With regard to slaves, the robber says to the owner: That which is yours is before you. The Gemara comments: But this indicates that with regard to an animal that aged while in the possession of the robber Rabbi Meir concedes to the first tanna, and he too holds that he pays according to what its value had been at the time of the robbery.


讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 住讘专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖讬谞讜讬 讘诪拽讜诪讜 注讜诪讚 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讛诪讛 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 拽住讘专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖讬谞讜讬 拽讜谞讛 讜讛讻讗 拽谞住讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 拽谞讬住


The Gemara continues: And if it enters your mind to say that Rabbi Meir holds that despite a change, the changed item remains in its place, then the animal should be returned as it is in the case of the animal that aged, as well. Rather, must one not conclude from the mishna that Rabbi Meir holds that one acquires an item due to a change in the item, but here, in the case of a stolen animal that subsequently was shorn or gave birth, the payment of wool or offspring is a penalty with which he penalizes the robber, so that the robber will not benefit from the increased value of the stolen item?


讗诪专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讚讘专讬讛诐 讚专讘谞谉 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讚讬讚讬 砖讬谞讜讬 讗讬谉 拽讜谞讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘讛诪讛 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 诇讚讬讚讻讜 讚讗诪专讬转讜 砖讬谞讜讬 拽讜谞讛 讗讜讚讜 诇讬 诪讬讛转 讘注讘讚讗 讚讻诪拽专拽注讬 讚诪讬 讜拽专拽注 讗讬谞讛 谞讙讝诇转 讜讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇讗 注讘讚讗 讻诪讟诇讟诇讬 讚诪讬


The Sages say in response: Rabbi Meir鈥檚 reasoning cannot be proven from the mishna, since it is possible to say that Rabbi Meir is speaking to the Rabbis in accordance with the Rabbis鈥 own statement. His statement should be understood as follows: According to my own opinion, one does not acquire an item due to a change in the item, and an animal that was stolen and then aged should be returned as it is now, as well. But according to you, who say that one acquires an item due to a change in it, agree with me in any event that with regard to a slave, he is returned as is. This is because his legal status is like that of real estate, and real estate cannot be stolen. And the Rabbis say to him in response: No, for the purpose of robbery, the legal status of a slave is like that of movable property.


转讗 砖诪注 诇爪讘讜注 诇讜 讗讚讜诐 讜爪讘注讜 砖讞讜专 砖讞讜专 讜爪讘注讜 讗讚讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讚诪讬 爪诪专讜 讚诪讬 爪诪专讜 讗讬谉 讚诪讬 爪诪专讜 讜砖讘讞讜 诇讗 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 住讘专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖讬谞讜讬 讗讬谉 拽讜谞讛 讚诪讬 爪诪专讜 讜砖讘讞讜 讘注讬 诇诪讬转讘 诇讬讛


The Gemara again attempts to find a solution to the question: Come and hear what was taught in the mishna (100b): If one gave wool to a dyer to dye it red for him and he dyed it black, or to dye it black and he dyed it red, Rabbi Meir says: The dyer gives the owner of the wool the value of his wool, since the dyer violated the owner鈥檚 wishes. It can be inferred from this mishna: The value of his wool, yes, he must give it; but the value of his wool and its enhancement, i.e., the amount by which the value of the wool increased because it was dyed, no, he need not give it. And if it enters your mind to say that Rabbi Meir holds that one does not acquire an item due to a change in the item, the dyer should be required to return the value of his wool and its enhancement to the owner, as it never left the owner鈥檚 possession.


讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 拽住讘专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖讬谞讜讬 拽讜谞讛 讜讛讻讗 拽谞住讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 拽谞讬住 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


Rather, isn鈥檛 it correct to conclude from the mishna that Rabbi Meir holds that one acquires an item due to a change in the item, but here, in the case of a stolen animal that was subsequently shorn or gave birth, the payment of wool or offspring is a penalty with which he penalizes the robber, so that the robber will not benefit from the increased value of the stolen item? The Gemara affirms this: Learn from the mishna that this is indeed the reasoning of Rabbi Meir.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛讗 诇讗 讗讬讘注讬 诇谉 诪讚讗驻讬讱 专讘 讜转谞讬 讙讝诇 驻专讛 讜讛讝拽讬谞讛 注讘讚讬诐 讜讛讝拽讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 讻砖注转 讛讙讝讬诇讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘注讘讚讬诐 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讛专讬 砖诇讱 诇驻谞讬讱 讜讚讗讬 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖讬谞讜讬 拽讜谞讛 讜讛讻讗 拽谞住讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 拽谞讬住 诇讬讛


There are those who say: This, i.e., Rabbi Meir鈥檚 reasoning, was never in question for us. Why not? From the fact that Rav reversed the opinions in the mishna on 96b and taught it as follows: If one robbed another of an animal and it aged, or if one robbed another of slaves and they aged, he pays according to what their value had been at the time of the robbery; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: With regard to slaves, the robber says to the owner: That which is yours is before you. Certainly, then, according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, one acquires an item due to a change in the item, which is why the robber pays according to what its value had been at the time of the robbery. But here, in the case of the cow that gave birth or the ewe that was shorn, the payment of offspring or wool is a penalty with which he penalizes the robber.


讻讬 拽讗 讗讬讘注讬 诇谉 讛讻讬 讗讬讘注讬 诇谉 讻讬 拽讗 拽谞讬住 讘诪讝讬讚 讗讘诇 讘砖讜讙讙 诇讗 拽谞讬住 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讜讙讙 谞诪讬 拽谞讬住


The Gemara continues the alternative explanation. When we asked the question, this is how we asked it: When Rabbi Meir penalizes the robber, is it only for one who robbed intentionally, but if one took an item from its owner unintentionally, Rabbi Meir does not penalize the robber? Or perhaps he penalizes even one who took an item from its owner unintentionally.


转讗 砖诪注 讞诪砖讛 讙讜讘讬谉 诪谉 讛诪讞讜专专讬谉


The Gemara tries to resolve this question: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: Five types of monetary claims are collected only from unsold [me岣rarin] property, i.e., property that is still in possession of its owner and has not been sold in the meantime.


讜讗诇讜 讛谉 驻讬专讜转 讜砖讘讞 驻讬专讜转 讜讛诪拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 诇讝讜谉 讘谉 讗砖转讜 讜讘转 讗砖转讜 讜讙讟 讞讜讘 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讗讞专讬讜转 讜讻转讜讘转 讗砖讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讗讞专讬讜转


And these are they: Produce, and the enhanced value of produce. Even if one has the right to the produce of a particular property, or the gain accrued from that produce, he cannot claim this payment from liened property. The Gemara continues with the list of monetary claims collected from unsold property: And one who accepts upon himself at the time of his betrothal the obligation to provide sustenance for his wife鈥檚 son or his wife鈥檚 daughter from a previous marriage; and a promissory note that has no property guarantee, i.e., a document that does not explicitly state that all of the properties of the debtor will serve to guarantee payment of the debt; and similarly, a woman鈥檚 marriage contract that has no property guarantee.


诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 讗讞专讬讜转 诇讗讜 讟注讜转 住讜驻专 讛讜讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜拽转谞讬 驻讬专讜转 讜砖讘讞 驻讬专讜转


The Gemara clarifies: Whom did you hear that says that omission of the guarantee of the sale from the document is not a scribal error? It is Rabbi Meir. There is a dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis with regard to a promissory note that does not contain a property guarantee. According to the Rabbis, it was omitted in error and is always considered as having been written in the document. Rabbi Meir holds that a promissory note that does not contain a property guarantee cannot be used to collect property that has been liened or sold; it can be used to collect only unsold property. This baraita is therefore in accordance with Rabbi Meir鈥檚 opinion. And the baraita teaches that produce and the enhanced value of produce are collected only from unsold property.


砖讘讞 驻讬专讜转 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讻讙讜谉 砖讙讝诇 砖讚讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜诪讻专讛 诇讗讞专 讜讛砖讘讬讞讛 讜讛专讬 讛讬讗 讬讜爪讗讛 诪转讞转 讬讚讜 讻砖讛讜讗 讙讜讘讛


The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances in which he collects the enhanced value of produce? It is a case where one robbed another of a field, and then sold it to another, and the purchaser enhanced it, and it is now leaving the possession of the purchaser because the robbery victim has proved in court that this field is his. When the purchaser collects from the robber who sold him this field, in order to recoup what he had paid,


讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛拽专谉 诪谞讻住讬诐 诪砖讜注讘讚讬诐 讜讗转 讛砖讘讞 诪谞讻住讬诐 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉 讚讗转讗 讘注诇 讗专注讗 讜砖拽讬诇 讗专注讬讛 讜砖讘讞讬讛


he can collect the principal, i.e., what he paid for the field, from the robber鈥檚 liened property that has been sold. But he can collect the enhanced value, i.e., the value of the improvements made to the field, only from unsold property. Why are both of these collected from the robber? Because the owner of the field came and took both his land and its enhanced value.


诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘注诐 讛讗专抓 讚诇讗 讬讚注 讚拽专拽注 谞讙讝诇转 讗讜 讗讬谞讛 谞讙讝诇转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 拽讗转讬 讘注诇 拽专拽注 讜砖拽讬诇 诇讗专注讗 讜砖讘讞讛 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘砖讜讙讙 谞诪讬 拽谞讬住 讗诪专讬 诇讗 讘诇讜拽讞 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 讜讬讚注


The Gemara clarifies: What, is it not speaking of a purchaser who is an ignoramus, who does not know whether property can be stolen or cannot be stolen, and when he purchased stolen land from the robber, he did so unintentionally, since he was under the mistaken impression that this land belonged to the robber who sold it? And even so, the owner of the land can come and take the land and its enhanced value. And if so, one may learn from the baraita that Rabbi Meir penalizes even one who acquires stolen items unintentionally. The Sages say in response: No, it is speaking of a purchaser who is a Torah scholar, and he knew that the robber had no right to sell this land. The purchaser is therefore penalized and is required to return the enhanced value of the land as well.


转讗 砖诪注 诇爪讘讜注 诇讜 讗讚讜诐 讜爪讘注讜 砖讞讜专 砖讞讜专 讜爪讘注讜 讗讚讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讚诪讬 爪诪专讜 讚诪讬 爪诪专讜 讗讬谉 讚诪讬 爪诪专讜 讜砖讘讞讜 诇讗


The Gemara again tries to determine the scope of the penalty: Come and hear what was taught in a mishna (100b): If one gave wool to a dyer to dye it red for him and he dyed it black, or to dye it black and he dyed it red, Rabbi Meir says: The dyer gives the owner of the wool the value of his wool, since the dyer violated the owner鈥檚 instructions. It can be inferred from the mishna: The value of his wool, yes, he must give; but the value of his wool and its enhanced value, i.e., the amount by which the value of the wool increased because it was dyed, no, he is not required to give.


讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讘砖讜讙讙 谞诪讬 拽谞讬住 讚诪讬 爪诪专讜 讜砖讘讞讜 讘注讬 诇诪讬转讘讗 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘诪讝讬讚 拽谞讬住 讘砖讜讙讙 诇讗 拽谞讬住 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


And if it enters your mind to say that Rabbi Meir penalizes one who acquires a stolen item unintentionally as well, the dyer should be required to return the value of his wool and its enhancement to him. Rather, must one not conclude from the mishna that if it was done intentionally, Rabbi Meir penalizes the robber, but if it was done unintentionally he does not penalize him? The Gemara affirms: Learn from the mishna that this indeed is the reasoning of Rabbi Meir.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讙讝讬诇讛 讞讜讝专转 讘注讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讛 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讬讗 砖讜诪讗 讗爪诇讜 讘讻住祝 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜


搂 The Gemara continues its discussion of the baraita. Rabbi Yehuda says: A stolen item is returned as is. Rabbi Shimon says: The stolen item is viewed as though it had been monetarily appraised at the time of the robbery. The Gemara asks: What is the difference between them, since ostensibly they agree that the robber does not return the value of the enhancement to the robbery victim?


讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讘砖讘讞 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讙讝讬诇讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讚谞讙讝诇 讛讜讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 讚讙讝诇谉 讛讜讬


Rav Zevid says: They disagree with regard to enhancement that is still upon the stolen item. The disagreement concerns a case where the enhancement occurred while the stolen item was in the possession of the robber, and when he returned the item it was still enhanced. Therefore, he did not keep any of the enhancement. Rabbi Yehuda holds that the enhancement belongs to the one who was robbed, and Rabbi Shimon holds that it belongs to the robber.


专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 砖讘讞 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讙讝讬诇讛 讚讙讝诇谉 讛讜讬 讜讛讻讗 诇诪讞爪讛 诇砖诇讬砖 讜诇专讘讬注 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 砖讘讞 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讙讝讬诇讛 讻讜诇讬讛 讚讙讝诇谉 讛讜讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 诇诪讞爪讛 诇砖诇讬砖 讜诇专讘讬注 讛讜讗 讚砖拽讬诇 讙讝诇谉


Rav Pappa said that the disagreement between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon can be explained differently: Everyone agrees that the enhancement that is still upon the stolen item belongs to the robber, and here they disagree with regard to whether the robber can keep one-half, or one-third, or one-fourth of the value of the enhancement, and the remainder is kept by the owner of the animal. Rabbi Yehuda holds that the enhancement that is still upon the stolen item belongs entirely to the robber, and Rabbi Shimon holds that the robber takes one-half, or one-third, or one-fourth of the value of the enhancement. In other words, he is treated as a shepherd or rancher and receives the share of the enhancement that local custom dictates be paid to that type of laborer.


转谞谉 讙讝诇 驻专讛 讜谞转注讘专讛 讗爪诇讜 讜讬诇讚讛 专讞诇 讜谞讟注谞讛 讗爪诇讜 讜讙讝讝讛 诪砖诇诐 讻砖注转 讛讙讝讬诇讛 讬诇讚讛 讗讬谉 诇讗 讬诇讚讛 讛讚专讗 讘注讬谞讗


The Gemara cites a proof for Rav Zevid鈥檚 explanation: We learned in the mishna (93b): If one robbed another of a cow, and it became pregnant in his possession, and it then gave birth; or if one robbed another of a ewe, and it became laden with wool in his possession, and he then sheared it, the robber pays according to the value of the animal at the time of the robbery. The Gemara infers from the mishna: If the cow gave birth, yes, he pays the value of the animal at the time of the theft, but if the cow did not give birth and is still pregnant, it is returned as is.


讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 讝讘讬讚 讚讗诪专 砖讘讞 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讙讝讬诇讛 讚谞讙讝诇 讛讜讬 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讚讗诪专 讚讙讝诇谉 讛讜讬 讛讗 诪谞讬 诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉


Granted, according to the explanation of Rav Zevid, who says that according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, enhancement that is still upon the stolen item belongs to the one who was robbed, in accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as the pregnant cow is returned as is. But according to the explanation of Rav Pappa, who says that everyone agrees that the enhancement belongs to the robber, in accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, nor is it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as the robber does not retain any of the enhanced value.


讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 讬诇讚讛 谞诪讬 讻砖注转 讛讙讝讬诇讛 讛讜讗 讚诪砖诇诐 讜讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 讬诇讚讛 讗讬讬讚讬 讚谞住讬讘 专讬砖讗 讬诇讚讛 谞住讬讘 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 讬诇讚讛


The Gemara responds: Rav Pappa could have said to you that the inference is incorrect: The same is true that even if it did not give birth, the robber pays according to the value of the animal at the time of the robbery, and the enhanced value due to the pregnancy is returned to him. And that which the mishna teaches: It then gave birth, cannot serve as the basis for an inference pertaining to this discussion. As the tanna needs to cite that it gave birth in the first clause of the mishna, since in that case he acquires the animal due to the change in its condition, therefore he cites that it gave birth in the latter clause as well, but it need not have given birth. It cannot be inferred from this mishna that an animal that has not given birth is returned as is.


转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讛 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讬讗 砖讜诪讗 讗爪诇讜 讘讻住祝 诇诪讞爪讛 诇砖诇讬砖 讜诇专讘讬注


The Gemara notes: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the explanation of Rav Pappa. The baraita states: Rabbi Shimon says: The stolen item is viewed as though it had been monetarily appraised at the time of the theft, for the purpose of keeping one-half, or one-third, or one-fourth of the value of the enhancement.


讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讻讬 讛讜讬谞谉 讘讬 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 诇诪讞爪讛 诇砖诇讬砖 讜诇专讘讬注 讛讜讗 讚砖拽讬诇 讙讝诇谉 讻讬 诪住诇拽讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讘讚诪讬 诪住诇拽讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诪讘砖专讗 砖拽讜诇


Rav Ashi said: When we were studying in the study hall of Rav Kahana, we were asked a question: According to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says that the robber takes one-half, or one-third, or one-fourth of the value of the enhancement; when we remove the robber, taking the stolen animal from him and paying him a portion of the enhanced value, do we remove him by paying him his share with money? Or, perhaps he takes his portion from the meat of the animal.


讜驻砖讟谞讗 诪讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖诇砖讛 砖诪讬谉 诇讛谉 讛砖讘讞 讜诪注诇讬谉 讗讜转谉 讘讚诪讬诐 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讘讻讜专 诇驻砖讜讟


And we resolved the dilemma from that which Rav Na岣an says that Shmuel says: In three cases, the court appraises the enhanced value for the parties involved in enhancing a field, and they are paid in money rather than by being given a portion of the property, and these are they: A firstborn son who makes payment to a regular son. This is a case where two sons, one firstborn and the other not, inherit a field from their father. Before it is divided, they both work and enhance the field. When the time comes to divide the field, the firstborn son, who receives a double portion, must pay his brother for the enhancement that the latter contributed to the former鈥檚 portion. This payment is given in money rather than land.


讜讘注诇 讞讜讘 诇诇讜拽讞 讜讘注诇 讞讜讘 诇讬转讜诪讬诐


And the second case is that of a creditor who is obligated to a purchaser, i.e., a creditor who collects the debt from lands that were sold by the debtor. He pays money to the purchaser for the enhancements generated by the purchaser but does not pay him in land. And the third case is that of a creditor who is obligated to orphans, i.e., a creditor who collects land from the orphans of his debtor. He must pay them for any enhancements done by the orphans after their father鈥檚 death. This payment is also given in money rather than land.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘注诇 讞讜讘 诇诇讜拽讞 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 砖讘讞 讜讛讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛砖讘讞 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘砖讘讞 讛诪讙讬注 诇讻转驻讬诐 讜讻讗谉 讘砖讘讞 砖讗讬谉 诪讙讬注 诇讻转驻讬诐


The Gemara discusses Shmuel鈥檚 statement. Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Did Shmuel actually say that a creditor gives the purchaser any of the enhanced value at all? But doesn鈥檛 Shmuel say: A creditor collects all of the enhanced value? Rav Ashi said to him: This is not difficult. Here, where Shmuel stated that a creditor does not collect the enhanced value, it was with regard to a case where there was enhancement that reaches shoulders [sheva岣 hammaggia likhtefayim], i.e., the produce that grew due to the improvements made by the purchaser is fully grown and ripened and can now be harvested and carried upon one鈥檚 shoulders. But there, where Shmuel stated that a creditor does collect the enhanced value, it was with regard to a case where there was enhancement that does not reach shoulders, i.e., its growth is not complete.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 诪注砖讬诐 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讜拽讗 诪讙讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讘讞 讛诪讙讬注 诇讻转驻讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗


Ravina said to him: But there were daily incidents of this type, and Shmuel would collect from purchasers even enhancement that reached shoulders. Rav Ashi said to him: This is not difficult.


Scroll To Top