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

Daf Yomi

February 6, 2024 | ื›ืดื– ื‘ืฉื‘ื˜ ืชืฉืคืดื“

  • 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

Todayโ€™s daf is sponsored by Art Gould in loving memory of Artโ€™s father Joseph, Yosef ben Shlomo Shabtai vโ€™Rachel 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 wasnโ€™t. The rest is family history. Joe was not one of those lucky people who โ€œfound what they love and never worked a day in his life.โ€ย  Instead, his career was โ€œbring home a paycheck and support his family.โ€ I wish we had had more time together.”ย 

Todayโ€™s daf is sponsored by Harriet Hartman in loving memory of her parents, Fruma (Florence) bat Ester vโ€™Nachum Natan, and Baruch (Ben) ben Hinda Josepha vโ€™ Zeโ€™ev 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.ย  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?

ื”ื ื“ืžืกื™ืง ื‘ื™ื” ื›ืฉื™ืขื•ืจ ืืจืขื ื•ืฉื‘ื—ื ื”ื ื“ืœื ืžืกื™ืง ื‘ื™ื” ืืœื ื›ืฉื™ืขื•ืจ ืืจืขื


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.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืื™ ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื–ื•ื–ื™ ืœืœื•ืงื— ืœื ืžืฆื™ ืžืกืœืง ืœื™ื” ืœื‘ืขืœ ื—ื•ื‘ ืฉืคื™ืจ ืืœื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืื™ ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื–ื•ื–ื™ ืœืœื•ืงื— ืžืฆื™ ืžืกืœืง ืœื™ื” ืœื‘ืขืœ ื—ื•ื‘ ืœื™ืžื ืœื™ื” ืื™ ื”ื•ื• ืœื™ ื–ื•ื–ื™ ื”ื•ื” ืžืกืœืงื™ื ื ืœืš ืžื›ื•ืœื™ื” ืืจืขื ื”ืฉืชื ื”ื‘ ืœื™ ื’ืจื™ื•ื ื“ืืจืขื ืฉื™ืขื•ืจ ืฉื‘ื—ืื™


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 seโ€™a [griva] of land, which is the amount of my enhancement.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ืฉื•ื™ื” ื ื™ื”ืœื™ื” ืืคื•ืชื™ืงื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื ื™ื”ื ืœืš ืคืจืขื•ืŸ ืืœื ืžื–ื”


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.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื’ื–ืœ ื•ื”ืฉื‘ื™ื— ื•ืžื›ืจ ื•ื’ื–ืœ ื•ื”ืฉื‘ื™ื— ื•ื”ื•ืจื™ืฉ ืžื” ืฉื”ืฉื‘ื™ื— ืžื›ืจ ืžื” ืฉื”ืฉื‘ื™ื— ื”ื•ืจื™ืฉ


ยง 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.


ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื ื”ืฉื‘ื™ื— ืœื•ืงื— ืžื”ื• ื‘ืชืจ ื“ื‘ืขื™ื ื”ื“ืจ ืคืฉื˜ื” ืžื” ืžื›ืจ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืœืฉื ื™ ื›ืœ ื–ื›ื•ืช ืฉืชื‘ื ืœื™ื“ื•


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.


ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื ื”ืฉื‘ื™ื— ื’ื•ื™ ืžื”ื• ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืื—ื ืžื“ืคืชื™ ืœืจื‘ื™ื ื ืชืงื ืชื ืœื’ื•ื™ ื ื™ืงื• ื•ื ืขื‘ื•ื“ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ื–ื‘ื ื™ื” ืœื™ืฉืจืืœ ืกื•ืฃ ืกื•ืฃ ื”ื‘ื ืžื—ืžืช ื’ื•ื™ ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ื›ื’ื•ื™


Rava raises a dilemma: What is the halakha if a gentile robber enhanced the value of a stolen item? Rav Aแธฅa 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 purchaserโ€™s rights are identical to the sellerโ€™s. Since the Sages did not institute ordinances for the benefit of gentiles, the Jewish purchaser does not have those rights either.


ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ื’ื–ืœ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ื–ื‘ื ื” ื ื™ื”ืœื™ื” ื•ื”ืฉื‘ื™ื—ื” ื’ื•ื™ ื•ื”ื“ืจ ื’ื•ื™ ื•ื–ื‘ื ื” ืœื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžืื™ ืžื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืžืขื™ืงืจื ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ื”ื“ืจ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืขื‘ื“ื™ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืชืงื ืชื ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืื™ื›ื ื’ื•ื™ ื‘ืืžืฆืข ืœื ืขื‘ื“ื• ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืชืงื ืชื ืชื™ืงื•


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.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื”ืื™ ืžืืŸ ื“ื’ื–ืœ ื“ื™ืงืœื ืžื—ื‘ืจื™ื” ื•ืงื˜ืœื™ื” ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืฉื“ื™ื ืžืืจืขื ืœืืจืขื ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ืœื ืงื ื™ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืžืขื™ืงืจื ื“ื™ืงืœื ืžื™ืงืจื™ ื•ื”ืฉืชื ื ืžื™ ื“ื™ืงืœื ืžื™ืงืจื™ ื“ื™ืงืœื ื•ืขื‘ื™ื“ ื’ื•ื‘ื™ ืœื ืงื ื™ ื”ืฉืชื ืžื™ื”ืช ื’ื•ื‘ื™ ื“ื“ื™ืงืœื ืžื™ืงืจื™


ยง 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.


ื’ื•ื‘ื™ ื•ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ื”ื• ื›ืฉื•ืจื™ ืงื ื™ ื›ืฉื•ืจื™ ืจื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื•ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ื”ื• ื›ืฉื•ืจื™ ื–ื•ื˜ืจื™ ืœื ืงื ื™ ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ื”ื• ืงืฆื•ืฆื™ื™ืชื ืงื ื™


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.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื”ืื™ ืžืืŸ ื“ื’ื–ืœ ืœื•ืœื™ื‘ื ื•ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ื”ื• ื”ื•ืฆื™ ืงื ื™ ื“ืžืขื™ืงืจื ืœื•ืœื™ื‘ื ืžื™ืงืจื™ ื•ื”ืฉืชื ื”ื•ืฆื™ ื”ื•ืฆื™ ื•ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ื”ื• ื—ื•ืคื™ื ืงื ื™ ืžืขื™ืงืจื ื”ื•ืฆื™ ื•ื”ืฉืชื ื—ื•ืคื™ื ื—ื•ืคื™ื ื•ืขื‘ื“ื™ื” ืฉืจืฉื•ืจื ืœื ืงื ื™ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ื”ื“ืจ ืกืชืจ ืœื™ื” ื•ื”ื•ื™ ื—ื•ืคื™ื


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.


ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื ื—ืœืงื” ื”ืชื™ื•ืžืช ืžื”ื• ืชื ืฉืžืข ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืชื•ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ื ื™ื˜ืœื” ื”ืชื™ื•ืžืช ืคืกื•ืœ


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.


ืžืื™ ืœืื• ื”ื•ื ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื ื—ืœืงื” ืœื ื ื™ื˜ืœื” ืฉืื ื™ ื“ื”ื ื—ืกืจ ืœื”


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.


ืื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืชื ืฉืžืข ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืชื•ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ื ื—ืœืงื” ื”ืชื™ื•ืžืช ื ืขืฉื” ื›ืžื™ ืฉื ื˜ืœื” ื•ืคืกื•ืœ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”


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.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื”ืื™ ืžืืŸ ื“ื’ื–ืœ ืขืคืจื ืžื—ื‘ืจื™ื” ื•ืขื‘ื“ื™ื” ืœื‘ื™ื ืชื ืœื ืงื ื™ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ื”ื“ืจ ืžืฉื•ื™ ืœื™ื” ืขืคืจื ืœื‘ื™ื ืชื ื•ืขื‘ื“ื™ื” ืขืคืจื ืงื ื™ ืžืื™ ืืžืจืช ื“ืœืžื ื”ื“ืจ ื•ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืœื™ื” ืœื‘ื™ื ืชื ื”ืื™ ืœื‘ื™ื ืชื ืื—ืจื™ืชื™ ื”ื•ื ื•ืคื ื™ื ื—ื“ืฉื•ืช ื‘ืื• ืœื›ืืŸ


ยง 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.


ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื”ืื™ ืžืืŸ ื“ื’ื–ืœ ื ืกื›ื ืžื—ื‘ืจื™ื” ื•ืขื‘ื™ื“ ื–ื•ื–ื™ ืœื ืงื ื™ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื”ื“ืจ ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืœื”ื• ื ืกื›ื ื–ื•ื–ื™ ื•ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ื”ื• ื ืกื›ื ืงื ื™ ืžืื™ ืืžืจืช ื”ื“ืจ ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืœื”ื• ื–ื•ื–ื™ ืคื ื™ื ื—ื“ืฉื•ืช ื‘ืื• ืœื›ืืŸ


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.


ืฉื—ื™ืžื™ ื•ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ื”ื• ื—ื“ืชื™ ืœื ืงื ื™ ื—ื“ืชื™ ื•ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ื”ื• ืฉื—ื™ืžื™ ืงื ื™ ืžืื™ ืืžืจืช ื”ื“ืจ ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืœื”ื• ื—ื“ืชื™ ืžื™ื“ืข ื™ื“ื™ืข ืฉื™ื—ืžื™ื™ื”ื•


Rav Pappa continues: If the stolen coins were black [sheแธฅimei], 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.


ื–ื” ื”ื›ืœืœ ื›ืœ ื”ื’ื–ืœื ื™ืŸ ืžืฉืœืžื™ืŸ ื›ืฉืขืช ื”ื’ื–ืœื” ื–ื” ื”ื›ืœืœ ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ืžืื™ ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ื”ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื ื’ื ื‘ ื˜ืœื” ื•ื ืขืฉื” ืื™ืœ ืขื’ืœ ื•ื ืขืฉื” ืฉื•ืจ ื ืขืฉื” ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ื‘ื™ื“ื• ื•ืงื ืื• ื˜ื‘ื— ื•ืžื›ืจ ืฉืœื• ื”ื•ื ื˜ื•ื‘ื— ืฉืœื• ื”ื•ื ืžื•ื›ืจ


ยง 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 thiefโ€™s 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.


ื”ื”ื•ื ื’ื‘ืจื ื“ื’ื–ืœ ืคื“ื ื ื“ืชื•ืจื™ ืžื—ื‘ืจื™ื” ืื–ืœ ื›ืจื‘ ื‘ื”ื• ื›ืจื‘ื ื–ืจืข ื‘ื”ื• ื–ืจืขื ืœืกื•ืฃ ืื”ื“ืจื™ื ื”ื• ืœืžืจื™ื” ืืชื ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ื–ื™ืœื• ืฉื•ืžื• ืฉื‘ื—ื ื“ืืฉื‘ื—


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 Naแธฅman to claim payment from the robber. Rav Naแธฅman 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.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืชื•ืจื™ ืืฉื‘ื— ืืจืขื ืœื ืืฉื‘ื— ืืžืจ ืžื™ ืงืืžื™ื ื ื ืฉื™ื™ืžื• ื›ื•ืœื™ื” ืคืœื’ื ืงืืžื™ื ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืกื•ืฃ ืกื•ืฃ ื’ื–ื™ืœื” ื”ื•ื ื•ืงื ื”ื“ืจื” ื‘ืขื™ื ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ื›ืœ ื”ื’ื–ืœื ื™ืŸ ืžืฉืœืžื™ืŸ ื›ืฉืขืช ื”ื’ื–ืœื”


Rava said to Rav Naแธฅman: 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 Naแธฅman 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?


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื ืืžื™ื ื ืœืš ื›ื™ ื™ืชื™ื‘ื ื ื‘ื“ื™ื ื ืœื ืชื™ืžื ืœื™ ืžื™ื“ื™ ื“ืืžืจ ื”ื•ื ื ื—ื‘ืจื™ืŸ ืขืœืื™ ืื ื ื•ืฉื‘ื•ืจ ืžืœื›ื ืื—ื™ ื‘ื“ื™ื ื ื”ืื™ ืื™ื ืฉ ื’ื–ืœื ื ืขืชื™ืงื ื”ื•ื ื•ื‘ืขื™ื ื ื“ืื™ืงื ืกื™ื”


Rav Naแธฅman said to Rava: Didnโ€™t 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.


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื’ื–ืœ ื‘ื”ืžื” ื•ื”ื–ืงื™ื ื” ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ื•ื”ื–ืงื™ื ื• ืžืฉืœื ื›ืฉืขืช ื”ื’ื–ืœื” ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ืื•ืžืจ ืœื• ื”ืจื™ ืฉืœืš ืœืคื ื™ืš


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.


ื’ื–ืœ ืžื˜ื‘ืข ื•ื ืกื“ืง ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื•ื”ืจืงื™ื‘ื• ื™ื™ืŸ ื•ื”ื—ืžื™ืฅ ืžืฉืœื ื›ืฉืขืช ื”ื’ื–ืœื”


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.


ืžื˜ื‘ืข ื•ื ืคืกืœ ืชืจื•ืžื” ื•ื ื˜ืžืืช ื—ืžืฅ ื•ืขื‘ืจ ืขืœื™ื• ื”ืคืกื— ื‘ื”ืžื” ื•ื ืชืขื‘ื“ื” ื‘ื” ืขื‘ื™ืจื” ืื• ืฉื ืคืกืœื” ืžืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื”ืžื–ื‘ื— ืื• ืฉื”ื™ืชื” ื™ื•ืฆืื” ืœื™ืกืงืœ ืื•ืžืจ ืœื• ื”ืจื™ ืฉืœืš ืœืคื ื™ืš


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.


ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืœื ื”ื–ืงื™ื ื” ื”ื–ืงื™ื ื” ืžืžืฉ ืืœื ืืคื™ืœื• ื›ื—ืฉื” ื•ื”ื ืื ืŸ ื”ื–ืงื™ื ื” ืชื ืŸ ื›ื—ืฉื” ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื”ื–ืงื™ื ื” ื“ืœื ื”ื“ืจ ื‘ืจื™ื


GEMARA: With regard to the mishnaโ€™s 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 didnโ€™t 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.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืจ ืงืฉื™ืฉื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจื™ ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืคื™ืœื• ื’ื ื‘ ื˜ืœื” ื•ื ืขืฉื” ืื™ืœ ืขื’ืœ ื•ื ืขืฉื” ืฉื•ืจ ื ืขืฉื” ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ื‘ื™ื“ื• ื•ืงื ืื• ื˜ื‘ื— ื•ืžื›ืจ ืฉืœื• ื”ื•ื ื˜ื•ื‘ื— ืฉืœื• ื”ื•ื ืžื•ื›ืจ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœืื• ืืžื™ื ื ืœืš ืœื ืชื—ืœื™ืฃ ื’ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื”ื•ื ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื ืื™ืชืžืจ


Mar Kashisha, son of Rav แธคisda, said to Rav Ashi: This is what they say in the name of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan: 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 robberโ€™s 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: Didnโ€™t 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 Yoแธฅanan.


ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ืื•ืžืจ ืœื• ื”ืจื™ ืฉืœืš ืœืคื ื™ืš ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื“ื™ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื•ืจื‘ ืฉื‘ื™ืง ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ืขื‘ื™ื“ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืืžืจื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื‘ืจื™ื™ืชื ืื™ืคื›ื ืชื ื™ื ื•ืจื‘ ืฉื‘ื™ืง ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื•ืขื‘ื™ื“ ื›ื‘ืจื™ื™ืชื ืจื‘ ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื ืžื™ ืื™ืคื›ื ืชื ื™


ยง 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 แธคanina 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.


ื•ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื“ืืคื™ืš ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ืžืงืžื™ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื™ืชื ืื“ืจื‘ื” ื ื™ืคื•ืš ืœื‘ืจื™ื™ืชื ืžืงืžื™ ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ืืžืจื™ ืจื‘ ื ืžื™ ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ืื™ืคื›ื ืืชื ื™ื”


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.


ื•ืื™ ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ื›ื™ ืœื ืืคื™ืš ื—ื“ื ืžืงืžื™ ื—ื“ื ื—ื“ื ืžืงืžื™ ืชืจืชื™ ืืคื™ืš


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.


ื“ืชื ื™ื ื”ืžื—ืœื™ืฃ ืคืจื” ื‘ื—ืžื•ืจ ื•ื™ืœื“ื” ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ืžื•ื›ืจ ืฉืคื—ืชื• ื•ื™ืœื“ื” ื–ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ืจืฉื•ืชื™ ื™ืœื“ื” ื•ื”ืœื” ืฉื•ืชืง ื–ื›ื” ื‘ื” ื–ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ื ื™ ื™ื•ื“ืข ื•ื–ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ื ื™ ื™ื•ื“ืข ื™ื—ืœื•ืงื•


The second baraita is as it is taught in the Tosefta (Bava Metzia 8:23โ€“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.


ื–ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ืจืฉื•ืชื™ ื•ื–ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ืจืฉื•ืชื™ ื™ืฉื‘ืข ื”ืžื•ื›ืจ ืฉื‘ืจืฉื•ืชื• ื™ืœื“ื” ืœืคื™ ืฉื›ืœ ื”ื ืฉื‘ืขื™ืŸ ืฉื‘ืชื•ืจื” ื ืฉื‘ืขื™ืŸ ื•ืœื ืžืฉืœืžื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ


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.


ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืื™ืŸ ื ืฉื‘ืขื™ืŸ ืœื ืขืœ ื”ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ื•ืœื ืขืœ ื”ืงืจืงืขื•ืช


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.


ื”ืื™ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืœืžืื™ ื“ืืคื›ื™ืชื• ื•ืชื ื™ืชื• ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ


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.


  • 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 doesnโ€™t 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 ื—ืจืฉ.ืช today?

Din & Daf: Conceptual Analysis of Halakha Through Case Study with Dr. Elana Stein Hain Dr. Elana Stein Hain โ€“ย dinanddaf@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

ื”ื ื“ืžืกื™ืง ื‘ื™ื” ื›ืฉื™ืขื•ืจ ืืจืขื ื•ืฉื‘ื—ื ื”ื ื“ืœื ืžืกื™ืง ื‘ื™ื” ืืœื ื›ืฉื™ืขื•ืจ ืืจืขื


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.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืื™ ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื–ื•ื–ื™ ืœืœื•ืงื— ืœื ืžืฆื™ ืžืกืœืง ืœื™ื” ืœื‘ืขืœ ื—ื•ื‘ ืฉืคื™ืจ ืืœื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืื™ ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื–ื•ื–ื™ ืœืœื•ืงื— ืžืฆื™ ืžืกืœืง ืœื™ื” ืœื‘ืขืœ ื—ื•ื‘ ืœื™ืžื ืœื™ื” ืื™ ื”ื•ื• ืœื™ ื–ื•ื–ื™ ื”ื•ื” ืžืกืœืงื™ื ื ืœืš ืžื›ื•ืœื™ื” ืืจืขื ื”ืฉืชื ื”ื‘ ืœื™ ื’ืจื™ื•ื ื“ืืจืขื ืฉื™ืขื•ืจ ืฉื‘ื—ืื™


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 seโ€™a [griva] of land, which is the amount of my enhancement.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ืฉื•ื™ื” ื ื™ื”ืœื™ื” ืืคื•ืชื™ืงื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื ื™ื”ื ืœืš ืคืจืขื•ืŸ ืืœื ืžื–ื”


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.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื’ื–ืœ ื•ื”ืฉื‘ื™ื— ื•ืžื›ืจ ื•ื’ื–ืœ ื•ื”ืฉื‘ื™ื— ื•ื”ื•ืจื™ืฉ ืžื” ืฉื”ืฉื‘ื™ื— ืžื›ืจ ืžื” ืฉื”ืฉื‘ื™ื— ื”ื•ืจื™ืฉ


ยง 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.


ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื ื”ืฉื‘ื™ื— ืœื•ืงื— ืžื”ื• ื‘ืชืจ ื“ื‘ืขื™ื ื”ื“ืจ ืคืฉื˜ื” ืžื” ืžื›ืจ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืœืฉื ื™ ื›ืœ ื–ื›ื•ืช ืฉืชื‘ื ืœื™ื“ื•


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.


ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื ื”ืฉื‘ื™ื— ื’ื•ื™ ืžื”ื• ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืื—ื ืžื“ืคืชื™ ืœืจื‘ื™ื ื ืชืงื ืชื ืœื’ื•ื™ ื ื™ืงื• ื•ื ืขื‘ื•ื“ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ื–ื‘ื ื™ื” ืœื™ืฉืจืืœ ืกื•ืฃ ืกื•ืฃ ื”ื‘ื ืžื—ืžืช ื’ื•ื™ ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ื›ื’ื•ื™


Rava raises a dilemma: What is the halakha if a gentile robber enhanced the value of a stolen item? Rav Aแธฅa 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 purchaserโ€™s rights are identical to the sellerโ€™s. Since the Sages did not institute ordinances for the benefit of gentiles, the Jewish purchaser does not have those rights either.


ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ื’ื–ืœ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ื–ื‘ื ื” ื ื™ื”ืœื™ื” ื•ื”ืฉื‘ื™ื—ื” ื’ื•ื™ ื•ื”ื“ืจ ื’ื•ื™ ื•ื–ื‘ื ื” ืœื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžืื™ ืžื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืžืขื™ืงืจื ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ื”ื“ืจ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืขื‘ื“ื™ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืชืงื ืชื ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืื™ื›ื ื’ื•ื™ ื‘ืืžืฆืข ืœื ืขื‘ื“ื• ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืชืงื ืชื ืชื™ืงื•


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.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื”ืื™ ืžืืŸ ื“ื’ื–ืœ ื“ื™ืงืœื ืžื—ื‘ืจื™ื” ื•ืงื˜ืœื™ื” ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืฉื“ื™ื ืžืืจืขื ืœืืจืขื ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ืœื ืงื ื™ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืžืขื™ืงืจื ื“ื™ืงืœื ืžื™ืงืจื™ ื•ื”ืฉืชื ื ืžื™ ื“ื™ืงืœื ืžื™ืงืจื™ ื“ื™ืงืœื ื•ืขื‘ื™ื“ ื’ื•ื‘ื™ ืœื ืงื ื™ ื”ืฉืชื ืžื™ื”ืช ื’ื•ื‘ื™ ื“ื“ื™ืงืœื ืžื™ืงืจื™


ยง 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.


ื’ื•ื‘ื™ ื•ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ื”ื• ื›ืฉื•ืจื™ ืงื ื™ ื›ืฉื•ืจื™ ืจื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื•ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ื”ื• ื›ืฉื•ืจื™ ื–ื•ื˜ืจื™ ืœื ืงื ื™ ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ื”ื• ืงืฆื•ืฆื™ื™ืชื ืงื ื™


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.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื”ืื™ ืžืืŸ ื“ื’ื–ืœ ืœื•ืœื™ื‘ื ื•ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ื”ื• ื”ื•ืฆื™ ืงื ื™ ื“ืžืขื™ืงืจื ืœื•ืœื™ื‘ื ืžื™ืงืจื™ ื•ื”ืฉืชื ื”ื•ืฆื™ ื”ื•ืฆื™ ื•ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ื”ื• ื—ื•ืคื™ื ืงื ื™ ืžืขื™ืงืจื ื”ื•ืฆื™ ื•ื”ืฉืชื ื—ื•ืคื™ื ื—ื•ืคื™ื ื•ืขื‘ื“ื™ื” ืฉืจืฉื•ืจื ืœื ืงื ื™ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ื”ื“ืจ ืกืชืจ ืœื™ื” ื•ื”ื•ื™ ื—ื•ืคื™ื


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.


ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื ื—ืœืงื” ื”ืชื™ื•ืžืช ืžื”ื• ืชื ืฉืžืข ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืชื•ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ื ื™ื˜ืœื” ื”ืชื™ื•ืžืช ืคืกื•ืœ


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.


ืžืื™ ืœืื• ื”ื•ื ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื ื—ืœืงื” ืœื ื ื™ื˜ืœื” ืฉืื ื™ ื“ื”ื ื—ืกืจ ืœื”


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.


ืื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืชื ืฉืžืข ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืชื•ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ื ื—ืœืงื” ื”ืชื™ื•ืžืช ื ืขืฉื” ื›ืžื™ ืฉื ื˜ืœื” ื•ืคืกื•ืœ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”


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.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื”ืื™ ืžืืŸ ื“ื’ื–ืœ ืขืคืจื ืžื—ื‘ืจื™ื” ื•ืขื‘ื“ื™ื” ืœื‘ื™ื ืชื ืœื ืงื ื™ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ื”ื“ืจ ืžืฉื•ื™ ืœื™ื” ืขืคืจื ืœื‘ื™ื ืชื ื•ืขื‘ื“ื™ื” ืขืคืจื ืงื ื™ ืžืื™ ืืžืจืช ื“ืœืžื ื”ื“ืจ ื•ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืœื™ื” ืœื‘ื™ื ืชื ื”ืื™ ืœื‘ื™ื ืชื ืื—ืจื™ืชื™ ื”ื•ื ื•ืคื ื™ื ื—ื“ืฉื•ืช ื‘ืื• ืœื›ืืŸ


ยง 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.


ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื”ืื™ ืžืืŸ ื“ื’ื–ืœ ื ืกื›ื ืžื—ื‘ืจื™ื” ื•ืขื‘ื™ื“ ื–ื•ื–ื™ ืœื ืงื ื™ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื”ื“ืจ ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืœื”ื• ื ืกื›ื ื–ื•ื–ื™ ื•ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ื”ื• ื ืกื›ื ืงื ื™ ืžืื™ ืืžืจืช ื”ื“ืจ ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืœื”ื• ื–ื•ื–ื™ ืคื ื™ื ื—ื“ืฉื•ืช ื‘ืื• ืœื›ืืŸ


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.


ืฉื—ื™ืžื™ ื•ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ื”ื• ื—ื“ืชื™ ืœื ืงื ื™ ื—ื“ืชื™ ื•ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ื”ื• ืฉื—ื™ืžื™ ืงื ื™ ืžืื™ ืืžืจืช ื”ื“ืจ ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืœื”ื• ื—ื“ืชื™ ืžื™ื“ืข ื™ื“ื™ืข ืฉื™ื—ืžื™ื™ื”ื•


Rav Pappa continues: If the stolen coins were black [sheแธฅimei], 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.


ื–ื” ื”ื›ืœืœ ื›ืœ ื”ื’ื–ืœื ื™ืŸ ืžืฉืœืžื™ืŸ ื›ืฉืขืช ื”ื’ื–ืœื” ื–ื” ื”ื›ืœืœ ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ืžืื™ ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ื”ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื ื’ื ื‘ ื˜ืœื” ื•ื ืขืฉื” ืื™ืœ ืขื’ืœ ื•ื ืขืฉื” ืฉื•ืจ ื ืขืฉื” ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ื‘ื™ื“ื• ื•ืงื ืื• ื˜ื‘ื— ื•ืžื›ืจ ืฉืœื• ื”ื•ื ื˜ื•ื‘ื— ืฉืœื• ื”ื•ื ืžื•ื›ืจ


ยง 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 thiefโ€™s 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.


ื”ื”ื•ื ื’ื‘ืจื ื“ื’ื–ืœ ืคื“ื ื ื“ืชื•ืจื™ ืžื—ื‘ืจื™ื” ืื–ืœ ื›ืจื‘ ื‘ื”ื• ื›ืจื‘ื ื–ืจืข ื‘ื”ื• ื–ืจืขื ืœืกื•ืฃ ืื”ื“ืจื™ื ื”ื• ืœืžืจื™ื” ืืชื ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ื–ื™ืœื• ืฉื•ืžื• ืฉื‘ื—ื ื“ืืฉื‘ื—


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 Naแธฅman to claim payment from the robber. Rav Naแธฅman 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.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืชื•ืจื™ ืืฉื‘ื— ืืจืขื ืœื ืืฉื‘ื— ืืžืจ ืžื™ ืงืืžื™ื ื ื ืฉื™ื™ืžื• ื›ื•ืœื™ื” ืคืœื’ื ืงืืžื™ื ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืกื•ืฃ ืกื•ืฃ ื’ื–ื™ืœื” ื”ื•ื ื•ืงื ื”ื“ืจื” ื‘ืขื™ื ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ื›ืœ ื”ื’ื–ืœื ื™ืŸ ืžืฉืœืžื™ืŸ ื›ืฉืขืช ื”ื’ื–ืœื”


Rava said to Rav Naแธฅman: 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 Naแธฅman 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?


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื ืืžื™ื ื ืœืš ื›ื™ ื™ืชื™ื‘ื ื ื‘ื“ื™ื ื ืœื ืชื™ืžื ืœื™ ืžื™ื“ื™ ื“ืืžืจ ื”ื•ื ื ื—ื‘ืจื™ืŸ ืขืœืื™ ืื ื ื•ืฉื‘ื•ืจ ืžืœื›ื ืื—ื™ ื‘ื“ื™ื ื ื”ืื™ ืื™ื ืฉ ื’ื–ืœื ื ืขืชื™ืงื ื”ื•ื ื•ื‘ืขื™ื ื ื“ืื™ืงื ืกื™ื”


Rav Naแธฅman said to Rava: Didnโ€™t 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.


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื’ื–ืœ ื‘ื”ืžื” ื•ื”ื–ืงื™ื ื” ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ื•ื”ื–ืงื™ื ื• ืžืฉืœื ื›ืฉืขืช ื”ื’ื–ืœื” ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ืื•ืžืจ ืœื• ื”ืจื™ ืฉืœืš ืœืคื ื™ืš


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.


ื’ื–ืœ ืžื˜ื‘ืข ื•ื ืกื“ืง ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื•ื”ืจืงื™ื‘ื• ื™ื™ืŸ ื•ื”ื—ืžื™ืฅ ืžืฉืœื ื›ืฉืขืช ื”ื’ื–ืœื”


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.


ืžื˜ื‘ืข ื•ื ืคืกืœ ืชืจื•ืžื” ื•ื ื˜ืžืืช ื—ืžืฅ ื•ืขื‘ืจ ืขืœื™ื• ื”ืคืกื— ื‘ื”ืžื” ื•ื ืชืขื‘ื“ื” ื‘ื” ืขื‘ื™ืจื” ืื• ืฉื ืคืกืœื” ืžืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื”ืžื–ื‘ื— ืื• ืฉื”ื™ืชื” ื™ื•ืฆืื” ืœื™ืกืงืœ ืื•ืžืจ ืœื• ื”ืจื™ ืฉืœืš ืœืคื ื™ืš


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.


ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืœื ื”ื–ืงื™ื ื” ื”ื–ืงื™ื ื” ืžืžืฉ ืืœื ืืคื™ืœื• ื›ื—ืฉื” ื•ื”ื ืื ืŸ ื”ื–ืงื™ื ื” ืชื ืŸ ื›ื—ืฉื” ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื”ื–ืงื™ื ื” ื“ืœื ื”ื“ืจ ื‘ืจื™ื


GEMARA: With regard to the mishnaโ€™s 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 didnโ€™t 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.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืจ ืงืฉื™ืฉื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจื™ ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืคื™ืœื• ื’ื ื‘ ื˜ืœื” ื•ื ืขืฉื” ืื™ืœ ืขื’ืœ ื•ื ืขืฉื” ืฉื•ืจ ื ืขืฉื” ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ื‘ื™ื“ื• ื•ืงื ืื• ื˜ื‘ื— ื•ืžื›ืจ ืฉืœื• ื”ื•ื ื˜ื•ื‘ื— ืฉืœื• ื”ื•ื ืžื•ื›ืจ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœืื• ืืžื™ื ื ืœืš ืœื ืชื—ืœื™ืฃ ื’ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื”ื•ื ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื ืื™ืชืžืจ


Mar Kashisha, son of Rav แธคisda, said to Rav Ashi: This is what they say in the name of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan: 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 robberโ€™s 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: Didnโ€™t 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 Yoแธฅanan.


ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ืื•ืžืจ ืœื• ื”ืจื™ ืฉืœืš ืœืคื ื™ืš ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื“ื™ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื•ืจื‘ ืฉื‘ื™ืง ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ืขื‘ื™ื“ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืืžืจื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื‘ืจื™ื™ืชื ืื™ืคื›ื ืชื ื™ื ื•ืจื‘ ืฉื‘ื™ืง ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื•ืขื‘ื™ื“ ื›ื‘ืจื™ื™ืชื ืจื‘ ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื ืžื™ ืื™ืคื›ื ืชื ื™


ยง 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 แธคanina 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.


ื•ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื“ืืคื™ืš ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ืžืงืžื™ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื™ืชื ืื“ืจื‘ื” ื ื™ืคื•ืš ืœื‘ืจื™ื™ืชื ืžืงืžื™ ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ืืžืจื™ ืจื‘ ื ืžื™ ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ืื™ืคื›ื ืืชื ื™ื”


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.


ื•ืื™ ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ื›ื™ ืœื ืืคื™ืš ื—ื“ื ืžืงืžื™ ื—ื“ื ื—ื“ื ืžืงืžื™ ืชืจืชื™ ืืคื™ืš


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.


ื“ืชื ื™ื ื”ืžื—ืœื™ืฃ ืคืจื” ื‘ื—ืžื•ืจ ื•ื™ืœื“ื” ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ืžื•ื›ืจ ืฉืคื—ืชื• ื•ื™ืœื“ื” ื–ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ืจืฉื•ืชื™ ื™ืœื“ื” ื•ื”ืœื” ืฉื•ืชืง ื–ื›ื” ื‘ื” ื–ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ื ื™ ื™ื•ื“ืข ื•ื–ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ื ื™ ื™ื•ื“ืข ื™ื—ืœื•ืงื•


The second baraita is as it is taught in the Tosefta (Bava Metzia 8:23โ€“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.


ื–ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ืจืฉื•ืชื™ ื•ื–ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ืจืฉื•ืชื™ ื™ืฉื‘ืข ื”ืžื•ื›ืจ ืฉื‘ืจืฉื•ืชื• ื™ืœื“ื” ืœืคื™ ืฉื›ืœ ื”ื ืฉื‘ืขื™ืŸ ืฉื‘ืชื•ืจื” ื ืฉื‘ืขื™ืŸ ื•ืœื ืžืฉืœืžื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ


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.


ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืื™ืŸ ื ืฉื‘ืขื™ืŸ ืœื ืขืœ ื”ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ื•ืœื ืขืœ ื”ืงืจืงืขื•ืช


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.


ื”ืื™ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืœืžืื™ ื“ืืคื›ื™ืชื• ื•ืชื ื™ืชื• ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ


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