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

Daf Yomi

February 6, 2024 | 讻状讝 讘砖讘讟 转砖驻状讚

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

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

Bava Kamma 96

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Art Gould in loving memory of Art鈥檚 father Joseph, Yosef ben Shlomo Shabtai v鈥橰achel on his 23rd yahrzeit. “Joe was an ordinary man of extraordinary dignity, decency and dedication. When my mother first saw him she was immediately interested. Then he removed his hat; she saw his bald head and concluded he was already married with children. He wasn鈥檛. The rest is family history. Joe was not one of those lucky people who 鈥渇ound what they love and never worked a day in his life.鈥澛 Instead, his career was 鈥渂ring home a paycheck and support his family.鈥 I wish we had had more time together.”聽

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Harriet Hartman in loving memory of her parents, Fruma (Florence) bat Ester v鈥橬achum Natan, and Baruch (Ben) ben Hinda Josepha v鈥 Ze鈥檈v Stillman, whose yahrzeits are only 4 days apart in Shvat. “They always encouraged me to pursue whatever interested me and supported me with unfailing love. Their love, solidarity and stability were models to all of my children despite our geographical distance in most of our everyday lives. I broadened their horizons, as they enabled my horizons to be broadened.”

Contradictory statements of Shmuel regarding the collection of land by a creditor from a buyer are reconciled – in what situations does the creditor collect the enhancements as well? On what does it depend? Rava explains that if one steals an item and it increases in value while in the thief’s possession, the increase goes to the thief, if the thief sells it or dies the buyer or the heirs get the enhancement as well. He asks about a case where the thief did not enhance the value of the item but the buyer/ heir did – do they get the enhancement as well? He then answers by saying that they do, as they acquired whatever rights the thief had. However, he asks if this would hold if a gentile had stolen and then sold the item to a Jew.聽 Ravina clarifies the case in which Rava asked this question. His question is left unanswered. Rav Pappa and Rava bring various cases where some sort of change happens to the item and they determine whether this is a significant change that would enable the robber to acquire the item or not. If the name changes, that is generally considered a significant change, but only if the item cannot be returned to its original state. The Mishna ended with an unnecessary line summing up the principle behind the cases in the Mishna. The Gemara derives from here an additional halakha that if one stole a lamb and it became a ram, a calf and it became an ox while in the possession of the thief, the item is acquired by the thief and he/she returns the value of the younger animal and if the thief sold or slaughtered it, there would be no four/five payment as it is considered owned by the thief. In a similar case, one stole oxen and used them to work his field and when they returned the animals, Rav Nachman required him to pay the value of the enhancement of the field. When Rava questioned his ruling, Rav Nachman explained that he ruled stringently as this thief had stolen many times before. If an object decreases in value in the hands of the thief, the thief returns the item at the value at the time of the theft, However, if it decreases in value on account of damages that cannot be noticed, such as, teruma that became impure, chametz after Pesach that was not sold, the thief can return the item as is, even though it now has no value. Rav held like Rabbi Meir in the Mishna regarding slaves – they are considered like land and therefore they are not acquired by a thief. Why did he hold like Rav against the mainstream opinion of the rabbis?

讛讗 讚诪住讬拽 讘讬讛 讻砖讬注讜专 讗专注讗 讜砖讘讞讗 讛讗 讚诇讗 诪住讬拽 讘讬讛 讗诇讗 讻砖讬注讜专 讗专注讗


This ruling, that Shmuel would collect the enhanced value, is for a case where the creditor is owed by the debtor the amount of the value of the land and the enhanced value. That ruling, that Shmuel would not collect the value of the enhancement, is for a case where the creditor is owed by the debtor only the amount of the value of the land.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 诇诇讜拽讞 诇讗 诪爪讬 诪住诇拽 诇讬讛 诇讘注诇 讞讜讘 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 诇诇讜拽讞 诪爪讬 诪住诇拽 诇讬讛 诇讘注诇 讞讜讘 诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讛讜讜 诇讬 讝讜讝讬 讛讜讛 诪住诇拽讬谞讗 诇讱 诪讻讜诇讬讛 讗专注讗 讛砖转讗 讛讘 诇讬 讙专讬讜讗 讚讗专注讗 砖讬注讜专 砖讘讞讗讬


Ravina said to him: This works out well according to the one who says: If the purchaser of the field has money, he still cannot remove the creditor from the land, i.e., the creditor has the right to collect the land. This is well. But according to the one who says: If the purchaser of the field has money, he can remove the creditor from the land, i.e., the purchaser can choose to pay him money instead, let the purchaser say: If I had money, I would remove you from all of the land; now that I do not have sufficient money to pay what you are owed, give me at least a se鈥檃 [griva] of land, which is the amount of my enhancement.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚砖讜讬讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讗驻讜转讬拽讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讬讛讗 诇讱 驻专注讜谉 讗诇讗 诪讝讛


Rav Ashi said to him: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the debtor set aside this field as designated repayment for him, as he said to him: You shall not be repaid from anything but this, in which case he clearly has a lien on this field and nothing else.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讙讝诇 讜讛砖讘讬讞 讜诪讻专 讜讙讝诇 讜讛砖讘讬讞 讜讛讜专讬砖 诪讛 砖讛砖讘讬讞 诪讻专 诪讛 砖讛砖讘讬讞 讛讜专讬砖


搂 The Gemara continues the discussion of a stolen item that has been enhanced. Rava says: If one robbed another of an item and enhanced it and sold it to another, and similarly, if one robbed another of an item and enhanced it and then died and bequeathed it, he sold that which he enhanced and bequeathed that which he enhanced. And the robbery victim, should he wish to recover the stolen item, must pay the purchaser or heir for the enhanced value.


讘注讬 专讘讗 讛砖讘讬讞 诇讜拽讞 诪讛讜 讘转专 讚讘注讬讗 讛讚专 驻砖讟讛 诪讛 诪讻专 专讗砖讜谉 诇砖谞讬 讻诇 讝讻讜转 砖转讘讗 诇讬讚讜


Rava raises a dilemma related to the aforementioned halakha: What is the halakha if a purchaser enhanced the stolen item? Must the robbery victim pay the purchaser for the enhanced value or not? After Rava raised the dilemma, he then resolved it: What has the first person sold to the second in any sale? He has sold any rights that will come into his possession. Since the robber had the rights to the value of his enhancements to the stolen item, he sold those rights to the purchaser as well.


讘注讬 专讘讗 讛砖讘讬讞 讙讜讬 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 诪讚驻转讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 转拽谞转讗 诇讙讜讬 谞讬拽讜 讜谞注讘讜讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讻讙讜谉 讚讝讘谞讬讛 诇讬砖专讗诇 住讜祝 住讜祝 讛讘讗 诪讞诪转 讙讜讬 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讙讜讬


Rava raises a dilemma: What is the halakha if a gentile robber enhanced the value of a stolen item? Rav A岣 of Difti said to Ravina: Shall we arise and institute an ordinance for the benefit of a gentile? Ravina said to him: This question is not necessary except where it was the case that a gentile sold it to a Jew. Rava was asking if the Jew needs to return the enhanced value. The Gemara comments: Ultimately, one who comes to possess an item due to purchasing it from a gentile is like a gentile himself because, as stated previously, in any sale the purchaser鈥檚 rights are identical to the seller鈥檚. Since the Sages did not institute ordinances for the benefit of gentiles, the Jewish purchaser does not have those rights either.


诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讻讙讜谉 讚讙讝诇 讬砖专讗诇 讜讝讘谞讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讜讛砖讘讬讞讛 讙讜讬 讜讛讚专 讙讜讬 讜讝讘谞讛 诇讬砖专讗诇 诪讗讬 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讬砖专讗诇 讜讛讚专 讬砖专讗诇 注讘讚讬 专讘谞谉 转拽谞转讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讙讜讬 讘讗诪爪注 诇讗 注讘讚讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 转拽谞转讗 转讬拽讜


The Gemara explains: This question is not necessary except where it was the case that a Jew robbed another of the item and sold it to a gentile, and the gentile enhanced it, and then the gentile went back and sold it to another Jew. What is the halakha in this case? Do we say: Since it was initially stolen by a Jew and was then acquired by a Jew, the Sages did institute an ordinance? Or, perhaps since there is the ownership of a gentile intervening, the Sages did not institute an ordinance. The Gemara comments: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讙讝诇 讚讬拽诇讗 诪讞讘专讬讛 讜拽讟诇讬讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚砖讚讬讗 诪讗专注讗 诇讗专注讗 讚讬讚讬讛 诇讗 拽谞讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪注讬拽专讗 讚讬拽诇讗 诪讬拽专讬 讜讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 讚讬拽诇讗 诪讬拽专讬 讚讬拽诇讗 讜注讘讬讚 讙讜讘讬 诇讗 拽谞讬 讛砖转讗 诪讬讛转 讙讜讘讬 讚讚讬拽诇讗 诪讬拽专讬


搂 The mishna teaches that if one robbed another of wood and fashioned it into vessels, he acquired the wood due to the change. The Gemara discusses what qualifies as a change. Rav Pappa said: With regard to this one who robbed another of a palm tree and cut it down, although he threw it from the land of the robbery victim to his own land, he did not acquire it. What is the reason for this? The tree was initially called a palm tree, and now, although it has been cut down, it is also called a palm tree, so the change to the item is not sufficiently significant for the robber to acquire it. Moreover, if one robbed another of a palm tree and made it into logs, he did not acquire it, since now, in any event, they are called palm tree logs.


讙讜讘讬 讜注讘讚讬谞讛讜 讻砖讜专讬 拽谞讬 讻砖讜专讬 专讘专讘讬 讜注讘讚讬谞讛讜 讻砖讜专讬 讝讜讟专讬 诇讗 拽谞讬 注讘讚讬谞讛讜 拽爪讜爪讬讬转讗 拽谞讬


By contrast, if one robbed another of logs and fashioned them into beams, he has acquired them, since this change is significant. If one robbed another of large beams and fashioned them into small beams, he did not acquire them, since they are still called beams. If he fashioned them into boards, he did acquire them.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讙讝诇 诇讜诇讬讘讗 讜注讘讚讬谞讛讜 讛讜爪讬 拽谞讬 讚诪注讬拽专讗 诇讜诇讬讘讗 诪讬拽专讬 讜讛砖转讗 讛讜爪讬 讛讜爪讬 讜注讘讚讬谞讛讜 讞讜驻讬讗 拽谞讬 诪注讬拽专讗 讛讜爪讬 讜讛砖转讗 讞讜驻讬讗 讞讜驻讬讗 讜注讘讚讬讛 砖专砖讜专讗 诇讗 拽谞讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讛讚专 住转专 诇讬讛 讜讛讜讬 讞讜驻讬讗


Rava said: This one who robbed another of a palm frond and fashioned it into leaves [hutzei], i.e., he removed the leaves from the spine, has acquired it, since initially it was called a palm frond and now it is called leaves. One who robbed another of leaves and fashioned them into a broom has acquired them, since initially they were called leaves, and now they are called a broom. One who robbed another of a broom and fashioned it into a rope has not acquired it. What is the reason for this? The reason is that he can go back and unravel it, and it will once again be a broom.


讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗 谞讞诇拽讛 讛转讬讜诪转 诪讛讜 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 诪转讜谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 谞讬讟诇讛 讛转讬讜诪转 驻住讜诇


Rav Pappa raises a dilemma: What is the halakha if the central twin-leaf became split, i.e., is this considered a change through which a stolen lulav would be acquired? The Gemara cites a proof: Come and hear that which Rabbi Matun says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: If the central twin-leaf was removed, the lulav is unfit.


诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇谞讞诇拽讛 诇讗 谞讬讟诇讛 砖讗谞讬 讚讛讗 讞住专 诇讛


What, is it not that the same is true for a case where the central twin-leaf became split, i.e., that this lulav has been rendered unfit to be used for the mitzva, and the robber has acquired the lulav as a result of this change? The Gemara answers: No, the case where it was removed is different, as the result is that it is lacking, and an incomplete lulav is certainly unfit. But if the leaf remains in place, albeit split, it does not necessarily render the lulav unfit. The lulav has not been changed and therefore the robber does not acquire it.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 诪转讜谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 谞讞诇拽讛 讛转讬讜诪转 谞注砖讛 讻诪讬 砖谞讟诇讛 讜驻住讜诇 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


There are those who say that the question was resolved as follows: Come and hear that which Rabbi Matun says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: If the central twin-leaf became split, it becomes like a lulav whose central twin-leaf was completely removed, and it is unfit. If so, learn from his statement that if the central twin-leaf became split, the robber has acquired the lulav as a result of the change.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讙讝诇 注驻专讗 诪讞讘专讬讛 讜注讘讚讬讛 诇讘讬谞转讗 诇讗 拽谞讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讛讚专 诪砖讜讬 诇讬讛 注驻专讗 诇讘讬谞转讗 讜注讘讚讬讛 注驻专讗 拽谞讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专转 讚诇诪讗 讛讚专 讜注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诇讘讬谞转讗 讛讗讬 诇讘讬谞转讗 讗讞专讬转讬 讛讜讗 讜驻谞讬诐 讞讚砖讜转 讘讗讜 诇讻讗谉


Rav Pappa said: This one who robbed another of earth and fashioned it into a brick has not acquired it due to the change. What is the reason for this? It is that he can return it and convert it back into earth. By contrast, if he robbed another of a brick, and by crushing it turned it into earth, he has acquired it due to the change. If you say: Perhaps he will return it and fashion it into a brick? This is a different brick, and a new entity has arrived, i.e., entered into existence, here.


讜讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讙讝诇 谞住讻讗 诪讞讘专讬讛 讜注讘讬讚 讝讜讝讬 诇讗 拽谞讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讚专 注讘讬讚 诇讛讜 谞住讻讗 讝讜讝讬 讜注讘讚讬谞讛讜 谞住讻讗 拽谞讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专转 讛讚专 注讘讬讚 诇讛讜 讝讜讝讬 驻谞讬诐 讞讚砖讜转 讘讗讜 诇讻讗谉


And Rav Pappa also said: This one who robbed another of a bar of silver [naskha] and fashioned it into coins has not acquired it due to the change. What is the reason for this? He can return it and by melting the coins turn them into a bar of silver. By contrast, if he robbed another of coins and fashioned them into a bar of silver, he has acquired them due to the change. What do you say in response to this, that perhaps he will return and fashion them into coins? These are new coins, and a new entity has arrived here.


砖讞讬诪讬 讜注讘讚讬谞讛讜 讞讚转讬 诇讗 拽谞讬 讞讚转讬 讜注讘讚讬谞讛讜 砖讞讬诪讬 拽谞讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专转 讛讚专 注讘讬讚 诇讛讜 讞讚转讬 诪讬讚注 讬讚讬注 砖讬讞诪讬讬讛讜


Rav Pappa continues: If the stolen coins were black [she岣mei], i.e., old and used, and he made them as new by cleaning them thoroughly, he has not acquired them. By contrast, if however, they were new, and he made them black, he has acquired them. What do you say in response to this, that perhaps he will return and make them new by cleaning them? Their blackness is already known, and therefore the coins have been changed irreversibly.


讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 讛讙讝诇谞讬谉 诪砖诇诪讬谉 讻砖注转 讛讙讝诇讛 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讗 讙谞讘 讟诇讛 讜谞注砖讛 讗讬诇 注讙诇 讜谞注砖讛 砖讜专 谞注砖讛 砖讬谞讜讬 讘讬讚讜 讜拽谞讗讜 讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 砖诇讜 讛讜讗 讟讜讘讞 砖诇讜 讛讜讗 诪讜讻专


搂 The mishna teaches: This is the principle: All robbers pay according to the value of the stolen item at the time of the robbery. The Gemara asks: What is added by the phrase: This is the principle? The Gemara replies: It serves to add that which Rabbi Ela says: If one stole a lamb and during the time that it was in the thief鈥檚 possession it became a ram, or if one stole a calf and it became an ox, then a change occurred while the animal was in his possession, and he has acquired it due to the change. If he then slaughtered or sold the animal, he slaughters his own animal and he sells his own animal, and he does not become liable to pay the penalty of four or five times the value of the animal.


讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讙讝诇 驻讚谞讗 讚转讜专讬 诪讞讘专讬讛 讗讝诇 讻专讘 讘讛讜 讻专讘讗 讝专注 讘讛讜 讝专注讗 诇住讜祝 讗讛讚专讬谞讛讜 诇诪专讬讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讝讬诇讜 砖讜诪讜 砖讘讞讗 讚讗砖讘讞


The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who robbed another of a pair [padna] of oxen. He then went and plowed his field with them, and sowed seeds with them, and eventually returned them to their owner. The robbery victim came before Rav Na岣an to claim payment from the robber. Rav Na岣an said to the robbery victim and the robber: Go estimate the amount by which the value of the land was enhanced during the time that the pair of oxen was in the possession of the robber, and the robber must pay that amount.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 转讜专讬 讗砖讘讞 讗专注讗 诇讗 讗砖讘讞 讗诪专 诪讬 拽讗诪讬谞讗 谞砖讬讬诪讜 讻讜诇讬讛 驻诇讙讗 拽讗诪讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 住讜祝 住讜祝 讙讝讬诇讛 讛讜讗 讜拽讗 讛讚专讛 讘注讬谞讗 讚转谞谉 讻诇 讛讙讝诇谞讬谉 诪砖诇诪讬谉 讻砖注转 讛讙讝诇讛


Rava said to Rav Na岣an: Did the oxen alone enhance the value of the land? Did the land not become enhanced in and of itself? Perhaps not all of the enhanced value of the land was due to the labor performed by the oxen. Rav Na岣an said: Did I say that they should estimate and give him all of the enhanced value? I said only half. Rava said to him: Ultimately, it is a stolen item and is returned as it was at the time of the robbery, as we learned in a mishna: All robbers pay according to the value of the stolen item at the time of the robbery. Why should the robber also pay the owner half the value of the enhancement?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讱 讻讬 讬转讬讘谞讗 讘讚讬谞讗 诇讗 转讬诪讗 诇讬 诪讬讚讬 讚讗诪专 讛讜谞讗 讞讘专讬谉 注诇讗讬 讗谞讗 讜砖讘讜专 诪诇讻讗 讗讞讬 讘讚讬谞讗 讛讗讬 讗讬谞砖 讙讝诇谞讗 注转讬拽讗 讛讜讗 讜讘注讬谞讗 讚讗讬拽谞住讬讛


Rav Na岣an said to Rava: Didn鈥檛 I tell you that when I am sitting in judgment, do not say anything to me, i.e., do not question or comment upon my rulings. An indication that my rulings should not be questioned is as our friend Huna has said about me, that King Shapur and I are brothers with regard to monetary laws, i.e., with regard to monetary laws, my opinion is equal to that of Shmuel. This man is an experienced robber, and I wish to penalize him. Therefore, I compelled him to pay the enhanced value, although by right he is not obligated to do so.


诪转谞讬壮 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


MISHNA: If one robbed another of an animal and it aged while in his possession, consequently diminishing its value, or if one robbed another of Canaanite slaves and they aged while in his possession, they have been changed. The robber therefore pays according to the value of the stolen item at the time of the robbery. Rabbi Meir says: With regard to Canaanite slaves, he says to the robbery victim: That which is yours is before you.


讙讝诇 诪讟讘注 讜谞住讚拽 驻讬专讜转 讜讛专拽讬讘讜 讬讬谉 讜讛讞诪讬抓 诪砖诇诐 讻砖注转 讛讙讝诇讛


If one robbed another of a coin and it cracked, thereby reducing its value; or if one robbed another of produce and it rotted; or if one robbed another of wine and it fermented, then he pays according to the value of the stolen item at the time of the robbery.


诪讟讘注 讜谞驻住诇 转专讜诪讛 讜谞讟诪讗转 讞诪抓 讜注讘专 注诇讬讜 讛驻住讞 讘讛诪讛 讜谞转注讘讚讛 讘讛 注讘讬专讛 讗讜 砖谞驻住诇讛 诪注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞 讗讜 砖讛讬转讛 讬讜爪讗讛 诇讬住拽诇 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讛专讬 砖诇讱 诇驻谞讬讱


If he robbed another of a coin and it was invalidated by the government; or if he robbed another of teruma and it became ritually impure; or if he robbed another of leavened bread and Passover elapsed over it, and therefore it is prohibited to derive benefit from it; or if he robbed another of an animal and a sin was performed with it, thereby disqualifying it for use as an offering; or if the animal was disqualified from being sacrificed upon the altar for some other reason; or if the animal was going out to be stoned because it gored and killed a person at some point after the robbery, the robber says to the robbery victim: That which is yours is before you. In all of these cases, although the value of the stolen item has been diminished or altogether lost, since the change is not externally discernible, the robber returns the item in its current state.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 讛讝拽讬谞讛 讛讝拽讬谞讛 诪诪砖 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讞砖讛 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 讛讝拽讬谞讛 转谞谉 讻讞砖讛 讻讙讜谉 讛讝拽讬谞讛 讚诇讗 讛讚专 讘专讬讗


GEMARA: With regard to the mishna鈥檚 statement that one who robbed another of an animal that aged pays what its value was at the time of the robbery, Rav Pappa says: It is not so that aged means that it actually aged. But even if the animal was weakened, which is a less significant change, it is still considered changed, and the robber has acquired the animal. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that it aged, indicating that a lesser change, e.g., weakening, is not significant? The Gemara responds: Rav Pappa was speaking of weakening that is like aging, i.e., the animal became so weak that it will not return to its former health.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 拽砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讙谞讘 讟诇讛 讜谞注砖讛 讗讬诇 注讙诇 讜谞注砖讛 砖讜专 谞注砖讛 砖讬谞讜讬 讘讬讚讜 讜拽谞讗讜 讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 砖诇讜 讛讜讗 讟讜讘讞 砖诇讜 讛讜讗 诪讜讻专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讱 诇讗 转讞诇讬祝 讙讘专讬 讛讛讜讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讗 讗讬转诪专


Mar Kashisha, son of Rav 岣sda, said to Rav Ashi: This is what they say in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan: Even if one stole a lamb and it became a ram, or a calf and it became an ox, it is considered that a change occurred while the animal was in the robber鈥檚 possession, and he has acquired it due to this change. If he then slaughtered or sold the animal, he slaughters his own animal and he sells his own animal, and he does not become liable to pay the penalty of four or five times the value of the animal. Rav Ashi said to him: Didn鈥檛 I say to you: Do not exchange the names of the men in whose name you are transmitting words of Torah? That statement was stated in the name of Rabbi Ela, not in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan.


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 讗诪专 专讘 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 讗讘讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘 砖讘讬拽 专讘谞谉 讜注讘讬讚 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诪专讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讘专讬讬转讗 讗讬驻讻讗 转谞讬讗 讜专讘 砖讘讬拽 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讜注讘讬讚 讻讘专讬讬转讗 专讘 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讗讬驻讻讗 转谞讬


搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Meir says: With regard to Canaanite slaves, he says to the robbery victim: That which is yours is before you. The Gemara comments: Rav 岣nina bar Avdimi says that Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. The Gemara asks: And would Rav set aside the opinion of the Rabbis, who are the majority, and practice the halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir? The Sages say: It is because it is taught in a baraita in the opposite manner, i.e., with the opinions reversed, so that the Rabbis, rather than Rabbi Meir, hold that with regard to slaves the robber says: That which is yours is before you. The Gemara asks: And would Rav set aside the mishna and practice the halakha in accordance with the statement of the baraita? The Gemara responds: Rav also teaches the mishna in the opposite manner.


讜诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘 讚讗驻讬讱 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪拽诪讬 讚讘专讬讬转讗 讗讚专讘讛 谞讬驻讜讱 诇讘专讬讬转讗 诪拽诪讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗诪专讬 专讘 谞诪讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗讬驻讻讗 讗转谞讬讛


And what is the reasoning of Rav, who reversed the opinions in the mishna in light of the baraita? On the contrary, let him reverse the opinions in the baraita in light of the mishna. The Sages say in response: Rav also learned the mishna in the opposite manner. Rav did not decide to reverse the opinions in the mishna. In the text of the mishna that he utilized, the opinions were the same as in the baraita.


讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讬 诇讗 讗驻讬讱 讞讚讗 诪拽诪讬 讞讚讗 讞讚讗 诪拽诪讬 转专转讬 讗驻讬讱


And if you wish, say instead that Rav did in fact decide to reverse the opinions in the mishna, based upon the principle: When he does not reverse a mishna due to a baraita, it is when there is one mishna that he will not reverse in light of one baraita. But he would reverse one mishna in light of two baraitot, and in this case there is a second baraita in which the opinions are the reverse of those found in the mishna.


讚转谞讬讗 讛诪讞诇讬祝 驻专讛 讘讞诪讜专 讜讬诇讚讛 讜讻谉 讛诪讜讻专 砖驻讞转讜 讜讬诇讚讛 讝讛 讗讜诪专 讘专砖讜转讬 讬诇讚讛 讜讛诇讛 砖讜转拽 讝讻讛 讘讛 讝讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讜讝讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讬讞诇讜拽讜


The second baraita is as it is taught in the Tosefta (Bava Metzia 8:23鈥24): In the case of one who exchanges a cow for a donkey, and in the meantime the cow gave birth; and similarly, in the case of one who sells his Canaanite maidservant, and in the meantime she gave birth, if in either of these cases the purchaser and seller have a dispute as to when the birth took place, where this one says: She gave birth at the time that she was in my possession and therefore the offspring is mine, and the other is silent, then the one who stated definitively that she gave birth while in his possession has acquired the offspring. If this one says: I do not know, and that one says: I do not know, then they shall divide the value of the offspring.


讝讛 讗讜诪专 讘专砖讜转讬 讜讝讛 讗讜诪专 讘专砖讜转讬 讬砖讘注 讛诪讜讻专 砖讘专砖讜转讜 讬诇讚讛 诇驻讬 砖讻诇 讛谞砖讘注讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 谞砖讘注讬谉 讜诇讗 诪砖诇诪讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专


The baraita continues: If this one says: She gave birth while in my possession, and that one says: She gave birth while in my possession, then the seller must take an oath that she gave birth while in his possession, as anyone who is obligated to take an oath that is enumerated in the Torah takes an oath and does not pay; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. In this case, since the seller initially had possession of the animal or the maidservant, he is considered the defendant, and therefore it is sufficient for him to take an oath to exempt himself from payment and maintain possession of the offspring.


讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 谞砖讘注讬谉 诇讗 注诇 讛注讘讚讬诐 讜诇讗 注诇 讛拽专拽注讜转


The baraita continues: And the Rabbis say that one does not take an oath concerning either Canaanite slaves or concerning land. This indicates that according to the opinion of the Rabbis, Canaanite slaves have the legal status of land, whereas according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, they do not. It follows, then, that in the mishna here as well, it is the Rabbis, and not Rabbi Meir, who maintain that, with regard to slaves, one says: That which is yours is before you, as one does with regard to land.


讛讗讬 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谞谉 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇诪讗讬 讚讗驻讻讬转讜 讜转谞讬转讜 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专


The Gemara asks: If it is true that the opinion that the mishna attributed to Rabbi Meir was attributed by Rav to the Rabbis, then this phrase: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, is imprecise. Rav should have said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The Gemara responds: This is what Rav is saying: According to the way that you have reversed the opinions in the mishna, and you taught that Rabbi Meir says that the robber says to the robbery victim: That which is yours is before you, then the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, despite the fact that according to Rav, this is the opinion of the Rabbis.


  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

  • 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...
din and daf with elana stein hain gemara shiur for women

Din & Daf: Cheresh – Does a deaf person have the halakhic status of 讞专砖.转 today?

Din & Daf: Conceptual Analysis of Halakha Through Case Study with Dr. Elana Stein Hain Dr. Elana Stein Hain 鈥撀燿inanddaf@hadran.org.il...
talking talmud_square

Bava Kamma 96: When Is a Palm Tree No Longer a Palm Tree?

When a thief improves what he's stolen and sells it or leaves the object to his heirs... the buyer acquires...
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:...

Bava Kamma 96

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 96

讛讗 讚诪住讬拽 讘讬讛 讻砖讬注讜专 讗专注讗 讜砖讘讞讗 讛讗 讚诇讗 诪住讬拽 讘讬讛 讗诇讗 讻砖讬注讜专 讗专注讗


This ruling, that Shmuel would collect the enhanced value, is for a case where the creditor is owed by the debtor the amount of the value of the land and the enhanced value. That ruling, that Shmuel would not collect the value of the enhancement, is for a case where the creditor is owed by the debtor only the amount of the value of the land.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 诇诇讜拽讞 诇讗 诪爪讬 诪住诇拽 诇讬讛 诇讘注诇 讞讜讘 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 诇诇讜拽讞 诪爪讬 诪住诇拽 诇讬讛 诇讘注诇 讞讜讘 诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讛讜讜 诇讬 讝讜讝讬 讛讜讛 诪住诇拽讬谞讗 诇讱 诪讻讜诇讬讛 讗专注讗 讛砖转讗 讛讘 诇讬 讙专讬讜讗 讚讗专注讗 砖讬注讜专 砖讘讞讗讬


Ravina said to him: This works out well according to the one who says: If the purchaser of the field has money, he still cannot remove the creditor from the land, i.e., the creditor has the right to collect the land. This is well. But according to the one who says: If the purchaser of the field has money, he can remove the creditor from the land, i.e., the purchaser can choose to pay him money instead, let the purchaser say: If I had money, I would remove you from all of the land; now that I do not have sufficient money to pay what you are owed, give me at least a se鈥檃 [griva] of land, which is the amount of my enhancement.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚砖讜讬讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讗驻讜转讬拽讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讬讛讗 诇讱 驻专注讜谉 讗诇讗 诪讝讛


Rav Ashi said to him: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the debtor set aside this field as designated repayment for him, as he said to him: You shall not be repaid from anything but this, in which case he clearly has a lien on this field and nothing else.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讙讝诇 讜讛砖讘讬讞 讜诪讻专 讜讙讝诇 讜讛砖讘讬讞 讜讛讜专讬砖 诪讛 砖讛砖讘讬讞 诪讻专 诪讛 砖讛砖讘讬讞 讛讜专讬砖


搂 The Gemara continues the discussion of a stolen item that has been enhanced. Rava says: If one robbed another of an item and enhanced it and sold it to another, and similarly, if one robbed another of an item and enhanced it and then died and bequeathed it, he sold that which he enhanced and bequeathed that which he enhanced. And the robbery victim, should he wish to recover the stolen item, must pay the purchaser or heir for the enhanced value.


讘注讬 专讘讗 讛砖讘讬讞 诇讜拽讞 诪讛讜 讘转专 讚讘注讬讗 讛讚专 驻砖讟讛 诪讛 诪讻专 专讗砖讜谉 诇砖谞讬 讻诇 讝讻讜转 砖转讘讗 诇讬讚讜


Rava raises a dilemma related to the aforementioned halakha: What is the halakha if a purchaser enhanced the stolen item? Must the robbery victim pay the purchaser for the enhanced value or not? After Rava raised the dilemma, he then resolved it: What has the first person sold to the second in any sale? He has sold any rights that will come into his possession. Since the robber had the rights to the value of his enhancements to the stolen item, he sold those rights to the purchaser as well.


讘注讬 专讘讗 讛砖讘讬讞 讙讜讬 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 诪讚驻转讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 转拽谞转讗 诇讙讜讬 谞讬拽讜 讜谞注讘讜讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讻讙讜谉 讚讝讘谞讬讛 诇讬砖专讗诇 住讜祝 住讜祝 讛讘讗 诪讞诪转 讙讜讬 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讙讜讬


Rava raises a dilemma: What is the halakha if a gentile robber enhanced the value of a stolen item? Rav A岣 of Difti said to Ravina: Shall we arise and institute an ordinance for the benefit of a gentile? Ravina said to him: This question is not necessary except where it was the case that a gentile sold it to a Jew. Rava was asking if the Jew needs to return the enhanced value. The Gemara comments: Ultimately, one who comes to possess an item due to purchasing it from a gentile is like a gentile himself because, as stated previously, in any sale the purchaser鈥檚 rights are identical to the seller鈥檚. Since the Sages did not institute ordinances for the benefit of gentiles, the Jewish purchaser does not have those rights either.


诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讻讙讜谉 讚讙讝诇 讬砖专讗诇 讜讝讘谞讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讜讛砖讘讬讞讛 讙讜讬 讜讛讚专 讙讜讬 讜讝讘谞讛 诇讬砖专讗诇 诪讗讬 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讬砖专讗诇 讜讛讚专 讬砖专讗诇 注讘讚讬 专讘谞谉 转拽谞转讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讙讜讬 讘讗诪爪注 诇讗 注讘讚讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 转拽谞转讗 转讬拽讜


The Gemara explains: This question is not necessary except where it was the case that a Jew robbed another of the item and sold it to a gentile, and the gentile enhanced it, and then the gentile went back and sold it to another Jew. What is the halakha in this case? Do we say: Since it was initially stolen by a Jew and was then acquired by a Jew, the Sages did institute an ordinance? Or, perhaps since there is the ownership of a gentile intervening, the Sages did not institute an ordinance. The Gemara comments: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讙讝诇 讚讬拽诇讗 诪讞讘专讬讛 讜拽讟诇讬讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚砖讚讬讗 诪讗专注讗 诇讗专注讗 讚讬讚讬讛 诇讗 拽谞讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪注讬拽专讗 讚讬拽诇讗 诪讬拽专讬 讜讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 讚讬拽诇讗 诪讬拽专讬 讚讬拽诇讗 讜注讘讬讚 讙讜讘讬 诇讗 拽谞讬 讛砖转讗 诪讬讛转 讙讜讘讬 讚讚讬拽诇讗 诪讬拽专讬


搂 The mishna teaches that if one robbed another of wood and fashioned it into vessels, he acquired the wood due to the change. The Gemara discusses what qualifies as a change. Rav Pappa said: With regard to this one who robbed another of a palm tree and cut it down, although he threw it from the land of the robbery victim to his own land, he did not acquire it. What is the reason for this? The tree was initially called a palm tree, and now, although it has been cut down, it is also called a palm tree, so the change to the item is not sufficiently significant for the robber to acquire it. Moreover, if one robbed another of a palm tree and made it into logs, he did not acquire it, since now, in any event, they are called palm tree logs.


讙讜讘讬 讜注讘讚讬谞讛讜 讻砖讜专讬 拽谞讬 讻砖讜专讬 专讘专讘讬 讜注讘讚讬谞讛讜 讻砖讜专讬 讝讜讟专讬 诇讗 拽谞讬 注讘讚讬谞讛讜 拽爪讜爪讬讬转讗 拽谞讬


By contrast, if one robbed another of logs and fashioned them into beams, he has acquired them, since this change is significant. If one robbed another of large beams and fashioned them into small beams, he did not acquire them, since they are still called beams. If he fashioned them into boards, he did acquire them.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讙讝诇 诇讜诇讬讘讗 讜注讘讚讬谞讛讜 讛讜爪讬 拽谞讬 讚诪注讬拽专讗 诇讜诇讬讘讗 诪讬拽专讬 讜讛砖转讗 讛讜爪讬 讛讜爪讬 讜注讘讚讬谞讛讜 讞讜驻讬讗 拽谞讬 诪注讬拽专讗 讛讜爪讬 讜讛砖转讗 讞讜驻讬讗 讞讜驻讬讗 讜注讘讚讬讛 砖专砖讜专讗 诇讗 拽谞讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讛讚专 住转专 诇讬讛 讜讛讜讬 讞讜驻讬讗


Rava said: This one who robbed another of a palm frond and fashioned it into leaves [hutzei], i.e., he removed the leaves from the spine, has acquired it, since initially it was called a palm frond and now it is called leaves. One who robbed another of leaves and fashioned them into a broom has acquired them, since initially they were called leaves, and now they are called a broom. One who robbed another of a broom and fashioned it into a rope has not acquired it. What is the reason for this? The reason is that he can go back and unravel it, and it will once again be a broom.


讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗 谞讞诇拽讛 讛转讬讜诪转 诪讛讜 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 诪转讜谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 谞讬讟诇讛 讛转讬讜诪转 驻住讜诇


Rav Pappa raises a dilemma: What is the halakha if the central twin-leaf became split, i.e., is this considered a change through which a stolen lulav would be acquired? The Gemara cites a proof: Come and hear that which Rabbi Matun says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: If the central twin-leaf was removed, the lulav is unfit.


诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇谞讞诇拽讛 诇讗 谞讬讟诇讛 砖讗谞讬 讚讛讗 讞住专 诇讛


What, is it not that the same is true for a case where the central twin-leaf became split, i.e., that this lulav has been rendered unfit to be used for the mitzva, and the robber has acquired the lulav as a result of this change? The Gemara answers: No, the case where it was removed is different, as the result is that it is lacking, and an incomplete lulav is certainly unfit. But if the leaf remains in place, albeit split, it does not necessarily render the lulav unfit. The lulav has not been changed and therefore the robber does not acquire it.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 诪转讜谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 谞讞诇拽讛 讛转讬讜诪转 谞注砖讛 讻诪讬 砖谞讟诇讛 讜驻住讜诇 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


There are those who say that the question was resolved as follows: Come and hear that which Rabbi Matun says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: If the central twin-leaf became split, it becomes like a lulav whose central twin-leaf was completely removed, and it is unfit. If so, learn from his statement that if the central twin-leaf became split, the robber has acquired the lulav as a result of the change.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讙讝诇 注驻专讗 诪讞讘专讬讛 讜注讘讚讬讛 诇讘讬谞转讗 诇讗 拽谞讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讛讚专 诪砖讜讬 诇讬讛 注驻专讗 诇讘讬谞转讗 讜注讘讚讬讛 注驻专讗 拽谞讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专转 讚诇诪讗 讛讚专 讜注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诇讘讬谞转讗 讛讗讬 诇讘讬谞转讗 讗讞专讬转讬 讛讜讗 讜驻谞讬诐 讞讚砖讜转 讘讗讜 诇讻讗谉


Rav Pappa said: This one who robbed another of earth and fashioned it into a brick has not acquired it due to the change. What is the reason for this? It is that he can return it and convert it back into earth. By contrast, if he robbed another of a brick, and by crushing it turned it into earth, he has acquired it due to the change. If you say: Perhaps he will return it and fashion it into a brick? This is a different brick, and a new entity has arrived, i.e., entered into existence, here.


讜讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讙讝诇 谞住讻讗 诪讞讘专讬讛 讜注讘讬讚 讝讜讝讬 诇讗 拽谞讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讚专 注讘讬讚 诇讛讜 谞住讻讗 讝讜讝讬 讜注讘讚讬谞讛讜 谞住讻讗 拽谞讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专转 讛讚专 注讘讬讚 诇讛讜 讝讜讝讬 驻谞讬诐 讞讚砖讜转 讘讗讜 诇讻讗谉


And Rav Pappa also said: This one who robbed another of a bar of silver [naskha] and fashioned it into coins has not acquired it due to the change. What is the reason for this? He can return it and by melting the coins turn them into a bar of silver. By contrast, if he robbed another of coins and fashioned them into a bar of silver, he has acquired them due to the change. What do you say in response to this, that perhaps he will return and fashion them into coins? These are new coins, and a new entity has arrived here.


砖讞讬诪讬 讜注讘讚讬谞讛讜 讞讚转讬 诇讗 拽谞讬 讞讚转讬 讜注讘讚讬谞讛讜 砖讞讬诪讬 拽谞讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专转 讛讚专 注讘讬讚 诇讛讜 讞讚转讬 诪讬讚注 讬讚讬注 砖讬讞诪讬讬讛讜


Rav Pappa continues: If the stolen coins were black [she岣mei], i.e., old and used, and he made them as new by cleaning them thoroughly, he has not acquired them. By contrast, if however, they were new, and he made them black, he has acquired them. What do you say in response to this, that perhaps he will return and make them new by cleaning them? Their blackness is already known, and therefore the coins have been changed irreversibly.


讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 讛讙讝诇谞讬谉 诪砖诇诪讬谉 讻砖注转 讛讙讝诇讛 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讗 讙谞讘 讟诇讛 讜谞注砖讛 讗讬诇 注讙诇 讜谞注砖讛 砖讜专 谞注砖讛 砖讬谞讜讬 讘讬讚讜 讜拽谞讗讜 讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 砖诇讜 讛讜讗 讟讜讘讞 砖诇讜 讛讜讗 诪讜讻专


搂 The mishna teaches: This is the principle: All robbers pay according to the value of the stolen item at the time of the robbery. The Gemara asks: What is added by the phrase: This is the principle? The Gemara replies: It serves to add that which Rabbi Ela says: If one stole a lamb and during the time that it was in the thief鈥檚 possession it became a ram, or if one stole a calf and it became an ox, then a change occurred while the animal was in his possession, and he has acquired it due to the change. If he then slaughtered or sold the animal, he slaughters his own animal and he sells his own animal, and he does not become liable to pay the penalty of four or five times the value of the animal.


讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讙讝诇 驻讚谞讗 讚转讜专讬 诪讞讘专讬讛 讗讝诇 讻专讘 讘讛讜 讻专讘讗 讝专注 讘讛讜 讝专注讗 诇住讜祝 讗讛讚专讬谞讛讜 诇诪专讬讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讝讬诇讜 砖讜诪讜 砖讘讞讗 讚讗砖讘讞


The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who robbed another of a pair [padna] of oxen. He then went and plowed his field with them, and sowed seeds with them, and eventually returned them to their owner. The robbery victim came before Rav Na岣an to claim payment from the robber. Rav Na岣an said to the robbery victim and the robber: Go estimate the amount by which the value of the land was enhanced during the time that the pair of oxen was in the possession of the robber, and the robber must pay that amount.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 转讜专讬 讗砖讘讞 讗专注讗 诇讗 讗砖讘讞 讗诪专 诪讬 拽讗诪讬谞讗 谞砖讬讬诪讜 讻讜诇讬讛 驻诇讙讗 拽讗诪讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 住讜祝 住讜祝 讙讝讬诇讛 讛讜讗 讜拽讗 讛讚专讛 讘注讬谞讗 讚转谞谉 讻诇 讛讙讝诇谞讬谉 诪砖诇诪讬谉 讻砖注转 讛讙讝诇讛


Rava said to Rav Na岣an: Did the oxen alone enhance the value of the land? Did the land not become enhanced in and of itself? Perhaps not all of the enhanced value of the land was due to the labor performed by the oxen. Rav Na岣an said: Did I say that they should estimate and give him all of the enhanced value? I said only half. Rava said to him: Ultimately, it is a stolen item and is returned as it was at the time of the robbery, as we learned in a mishna: All robbers pay according to the value of the stolen item at the time of the robbery. Why should the robber also pay the owner half the value of the enhancement?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讱 讻讬 讬转讬讘谞讗 讘讚讬谞讗 诇讗 转讬诪讗 诇讬 诪讬讚讬 讚讗诪专 讛讜谞讗 讞讘专讬谉 注诇讗讬 讗谞讗 讜砖讘讜专 诪诇讻讗 讗讞讬 讘讚讬谞讗 讛讗讬 讗讬谞砖 讙讝诇谞讗 注转讬拽讗 讛讜讗 讜讘注讬谞讗 讚讗讬拽谞住讬讛


Rav Na岣an said to Rava: Didn鈥檛 I tell you that when I am sitting in judgment, do not say anything to me, i.e., do not question or comment upon my rulings. An indication that my rulings should not be questioned is as our friend Huna has said about me, that King Shapur and I are brothers with regard to monetary laws, i.e., with regard to monetary laws, my opinion is equal to that of Shmuel. This man is an experienced robber, and I wish to penalize him. Therefore, I compelled him to pay the enhanced value, although by right he is not obligated to do so.


诪转谞讬壮 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


MISHNA: If one robbed another of an animal and it aged while in his possession, consequently diminishing its value, or if one robbed another of Canaanite slaves and they aged while in his possession, they have been changed. The robber therefore pays according to the value of the stolen item at the time of the robbery. Rabbi Meir says: With regard to Canaanite slaves, he says to the robbery victim: That which is yours is before you.


讙讝诇 诪讟讘注 讜谞住讚拽 驻讬专讜转 讜讛专拽讬讘讜 讬讬谉 讜讛讞诪讬抓 诪砖诇诐 讻砖注转 讛讙讝诇讛


If one robbed another of a coin and it cracked, thereby reducing its value; or if one robbed another of produce and it rotted; or if one robbed another of wine and it fermented, then he pays according to the value of the stolen item at the time of the robbery.


诪讟讘注 讜谞驻住诇 转专讜诪讛 讜谞讟诪讗转 讞诪抓 讜注讘专 注诇讬讜 讛驻住讞 讘讛诪讛 讜谞转注讘讚讛 讘讛 注讘讬专讛 讗讜 砖谞驻住诇讛 诪注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞 讗讜 砖讛讬转讛 讬讜爪讗讛 诇讬住拽诇 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讛专讬 砖诇讱 诇驻谞讬讱


If he robbed another of a coin and it was invalidated by the government; or if he robbed another of teruma and it became ritually impure; or if he robbed another of leavened bread and Passover elapsed over it, and therefore it is prohibited to derive benefit from it; or if he robbed another of an animal and a sin was performed with it, thereby disqualifying it for use as an offering; or if the animal was disqualified from being sacrificed upon the altar for some other reason; or if the animal was going out to be stoned because it gored and killed a person at some point after the robbery, the robber says to the robbery victim: That which is yours is before you. In all of these cases, although the value of the stolen item has been diminished or altogether lost, since the change is not externally discernible, the robber returns the item in its current state.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 讛讝拽讬谞讛 讛讝拽讬谞讛 诪诪砖 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讞砖讛 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 讛讝拽讬谞讛 转谞谉 讻讞砖讛 讻讙讜谉 讛讝拽讬谞讛 讚诇讗 讛讚专 讘专讬讗


GEMARA: With regard to the mishna鈥檚 statement that one who robbed another of an animal that aged pays what its value was at the time of the robbery, Rav Pappa says: It is not so that aged means that it actually aged. But even if the animal was weakened, which is a less significant change, it is still considered changed, and the robber has acquired the animal. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that it aged, indicating that a lesser change, e.g., weakening, is not significant? The Gemara responds: Rav Pappa was speaking of weakening that is like aging, i.e., the animal became so weak that it will not return to its former health.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 拽砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讙谞讘 讟诇讛 讜谞注砖讛 讗讬诇 注讙诇 讜谞注砖讛 砖讜专 谞注砖讛 砖讬谞讜讬 讘讬讚讜 讜拽谞讗讜 讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 砖诇讜 讛讜讗 讟讜讘讞 砖诇讜 讛讜讗 诪讜讻专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讱 诇讗 转讞诇讬祝 讙讘专讬 讛讛讜讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讗 讗讬转诪专


Mar Kashisha, son of Rav 岣sda, said to Rav Ashi: This is what they say in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan: Even if one stole a lamb and it became a ram, or a calf and it became an ox, it is considered that a change occurred while the animal was in the robber鈥檚 possession, and he has acquired it due to this change. If he then slaughtered or sold the animal, he slaughters his own animal and he sells his own animal, and he does not become liable to pay the penalty of four or five times the value of the animal. Rav Ashi said to him: Didn鈥檛 I say to you: Do not exchange the names of the men in whose name you are transmitting words of Torah? That statement was stated in the name of Rabbi Ela, not in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan.


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 讗诪专 专讘 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 讗讘讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘 砖讘讬拽 专讘谞谉 讜注讘讬讚 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诪专讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讘专讬讬转讗 讗讬驻讻讗 转谞讬讗 讜专讘 砖讘讬拽 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讜注讘讬讚 讻讘专讬讬转讗 专讘 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讗讬驻讻讗 转谞讬


搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Meir says: With regard to Canaanite slaves, he says to the robbery victim: That which is yours is before you. The Gemara comments: Rav 岣nina bar Avdimi says that Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. The Gemara asks: And would Rav set aside the opinion of the Rabbis, who are the majority, and practice the halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir? The Sages say: It is because it is taught in a baraita in the opposite manner, i.e., with the opinions reversed, so that the Rabbis, rather than Rabbi Meir, hold that with regard to slaves the robber says: That which is yours is before you. The Gemara asks: And would Rav set aside the mishna and practice the halakha in accordance with the statement of the baraita? The Gemara responds: Rav also teaches the mishna in the opposite manner.


讜诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘 讚讗驻讬讱 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪拽诪讬 讚讘专讬讬转讗 讗讚专讘讛 谞讬驻讜讱 诇讘专讬讬转讗 诪拽诪讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗诪专讬 专讘 谞诪讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗讬驻讻讗 讗转谞讬讛


And what is the reasoning of Rav, who reversed the opinions in the mishna in light of the baraita? On the contrary, let him reverse the opinions in the baraita in light of the mishna. The Sages say in response: Rav also learned the mishna in the opposite manner. Rav did not decide to reverse the opinions in the mishna. In the text of the mishna that he utilized, the opinions were the same as in the baraita.


讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讬 诇讗 讗驻讬讱 讞讚讗 诪拽诪讬 讞讚讗 讞讚讗 诪拽诪讬 转专转讬 讗驻讬讱


And if you wish, say instead that Rav did in fact decide to reverse the opinions in the mishna, based upon the principle: When he does not reverse a mishna due to a baraita, it is when there is one mishna that he will not reverse in light of one baraita. But he would reverse one mishna in light of two baraitot, and in this case there is a second baraita in which the opinions are the reverse of those found in the mishna.


讚转谞讬讗 讛诪讞诇讬祝 驻专讛 讘讞诪讜专 讜讬诇讚讛 讜讻谉 讛诪讜讻专 砖驻讞转讜 讜讬诇讚讛 讝讛 讗讜诪专 讘专砖讜转讬 讬诇讚讛 讜讛诇讛 砖讜转拽 讝讻讛 讘讛 讝讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讜讝讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讬讞诇讜拽讜


The second baraita is as it is taught in the Tosefta (Bava Metzia 8:23鈥24): In the case of one who exchanges a cow for a donkey, and in the meantime the cow gave birth; and similarly, in the case of one who sells his Canaanite maidservant, and in the meantime she gave birth, if in either of these cases the purchaser and seller have a dispute as to when the birth took place, where this one says: She gave birth at the time that she was in my possession and therefore the offspring is mine, and the other is silent, then the one who stated definitively that she gave birth while in his possession has acquired the offspring. If this one says: I do not know, and that one says: I do not know, then they shall divide the value of the offspring.


讝讛 讗讜诪专 讘专砖讜转讬 讜讝讛 讗讜诪专 讘专砖讜转讬 讬砖讘注 讛诪讜讻专 砖讘专砖讜转讜 讬诇讚讛 诇驻讬 砖讻诇 讛谞砖讘注讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 谞砖讘注讬谉 讜诇讗 诪砖诇诪讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专


The baraita continues: If this one says: She gave birth while in my possession, and that one says: She gave birth while in my possession, then the seller must take an oath that she gave birth while in his possession, as anyone who is obligated to take an oath that is enumerated in the Torah takes an oath and does not pay; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. In this case, since the seller initially had possession of the animal or the maidservant, he is considered the defendant, and therefore it is sufficient for him to take an oath to exempt himself from payment and maintain possession of the offspring.


讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 谞砖讘注讬谉 诇讗 注诇 讛注讘讚讬诐 讜诇讗 注诇 讛拽专拽注讜转


The baraita continues: And the Rabbis say that one does not take an oath concerning either Canaanite slaves or concerning land. This indicates that according to the opinion of the Rabbis, Canaanite slaves have the legal status of land, whereas according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, they do not. It follows, then, that in the mishna here as well, it is the Rabbis, and not Rabbi Meir, who maintain that, with regard to slaves, one says: That which is yours is before you, as one does with regard to land.


讛讗讬 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谞谉 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇诪讗讬 讚讗驻讻讬转讜 讜转谞讬转讜 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专


The Gemara asks: If it is true that the opinion that the mishna attributed to Rabbi Meir was attributed by Rav to the Rabbis, then this phrase: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, is imprecise. Rav should have said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The Gemara responds: This is what Rav is saying: According to the way that you have reversed the opinions in the mishna, and you taught that Rabbi Meir says that the robber says to the robbery victim: That which is yours is before you, then the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, despite the fact that according to Rav, this is the opinion of the Rabbis.


Scroll To Top