Bava Kamma 97

ומי אמר רב עבדא כמקרקעי דמי והאמר רב דניאל בר רב קטינא אמר רב התוקף בעבדו של חבירו ועשה בו מלאכה פטור ואי סלקא דעתך עבדא כמקרקעי דמי אמאי פטור ברשותא דמריה קאי

And did Rav actually say that the legal status of a Canaanite slave is like that of real estate? But doesn’t Rav Daniel bar Rav Ketina say that Rav says: One who seizes another’s Canaanite slave and performs labor with him is exempt from paying the master for the labor of the slave? And if it enters your mind to say that, in Rav’s opinion, the legal status of a slave is like that of real estate, why is he exempt from paying? A slave, like real estate, is always in the possession of his owner, wherever he might be. Therefore, the one who seized him did not steal the slave, in which case he could simply return him. Rather, he made use of a slave belonging to another and should be liable to pay for the master’s loss of the slave’s labor.

הכא במאי עסקינן שלא בשעת מלאכה כי הא דשלח ליה רבי אבא למרי בר מר בעי מיניה מרב הונא הדר בחצר חבירו שלא מדעתו צריך להעלות לו שכר או אין צריך להעלות לו שכר ושלחו ליה אינו צריך להעלות לו שכר

The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the one who seized the slave forced him to perform labor when it was not during regular working hours. Consequently, he did not prevent the slave from performing labor for his master. Since the owner did not incur any loss, the one who seized the slave is not obligated to pay for the benefit that he derived from the slave. This is like that message that Rabbi Abba sent to Mari bar Mar: Ask Rav Huna concerning one who resides in another’s courtyard without the owner’s knowledge: Does he need to pay him rent, or does he not need to pay him rent? And they sent to him in response: He does not need to pay him rent, since the owner of the property did not incur any monetary loss.

הכי השתא בשלמא התם בין למאן דאמר ביתא מיתבא יתיב ניחא ליה בין למאן דאמר ושאיה יכת שער ניחא ליה

The Gemara rejects this comparison: How can these cases be compared? Granted, there, in the case of a courtyard, whether the reasoning for that halakha is according to the one who says: An inhabited house remains habitable, and it is therefore satisfactory for the owner of the property to have someone residing in his courtyard, or whether the reasoning is according to the one who says that since the verse states: “In the city is left desolation, and the gate is smitten unto ruin” (Isaiah 24:12), which indicates that a desolate house will fall into ruin but an inhabited house will be maintained, either way it is satisfactory for the owner that one stay in his courtyard. Consequently, the one who resides there need not pay rent.

אלא הכא מי ניחא ליה דנכחוש עבדיה אמרי הכי נמי ניחא ליה דלא ליסתרי עבדיה

But here, in the case of a slave, is it satisfactory for him that his slave be weakened by performing labor for another? The Sages say: Indeed, it is satisfactory for him that the work habits of his slave not be undone.

בי רב יוסף בר חמא הוו תקיף עבדי דאינשי דמסיק בהו זוזי ועבדי בהו מלאכה אמר ליה רבה בריה מאי טעמא עביד מר הכי אמר ליה דאמר רב נחמן עבדא נהום כריסיה לא שוי אמר ליה אימא דאמר רב נחמן כגון דארו עבדיה דמרקיד בי כובי כולהו עבדי מעבד עבדי

The Gemara records a related incident. Members of the house of Rav Yosef bar Ḥama would, with his approval, seize the slaves of people who owed him money, and they would work them against the will of the owners. Rabba, son of Rav Yosef bar Ḥama, said to him: What is the reason that the Master does this, i.e., seizes and uses these slaves? Rav Yosef bar Ḥama said to him: As Rav Naḥman says: A slave is not worth even the bread in his stomach. When the slaves work for me and eat in my home, I am not causing the owners any monetary loss. Rav Yosef bar Ḥama’s son said to him: I will say that Rav Naḥman said this with regard to specific slaves, such as his slave Daru, who only dances among the wine barrels [kuvei] and does not perform any labor. All other slaves perform labor, and their labor is worth more than their board.

אמר ליה אנא כרב דניאל סבירא לי דאמר רב דניאל בר רב קטינא אמר רב התוקף בעבדו של חבירו ועשה בו מלאכה פטור אלמא ניחא ליה דלא ליסתרי עבדיה

Rav Yosef bar Ḥama said to him: I hold in accordance with the opinion of Rav Daniel, as Rav Daniel bar Rav Ketina says that Rav says: One who seizes another’s slave and performs labor with him is exempt from paying the master for the labor of the slave. Apparently, it is satisfactory for the master that the work habits of his slave not be undone.

אמר ליה הני מילי היכא דלא מסיק בהו זוזי מר כיון דמסיק בהו זוזי מחזי כרבית דאמר רב יוסף בר מניומי אמר רב נחמן אף על פי שאמרו הדר בחצר חבירו שלא מדעתו אין צריך להעלות לו שכר הלוהו ודר בחצר חבירו צריך להעלות לו שכר אמר ליה הדרי בי

Rabba said to him: This statement of Rav Daniel applies when the one who seizes the slave is not owed money by the owner of the slave. But since the Master is owed money by the owner of the slave, this has the appearance of interest, as Rav Yosef bar Minyumi says that Rav Naḥman says: Although the Sages said that one who resides in another’s courtyard without his knowledge does not need to pay him rent, if one lent money to another, and then resided in the courtyard of another, i.e., that of his creditor, he needs to pay him rent, to avoid the appearance of interest. Rav Yosef bar Ḥama said to him: I retract my opinion, and will no longer seize the slaves of my debtors.

איתמר התוקף ספינתו של חבירו ועשה בה מלאכה אמר רב רצה שכרה נוטל רצה פחתה נוטל ושמואל אמר אינו נוטל אלא פחתה

It was stated: In the case of one who seizes another’s ship and performs labor with it, what payment can the ship’s owner claim? Rav says that he may choose: If he wishes, he can take the cost of the ship’s rent, and if he wishes, he can take the amount by which the value of the ship was diminished by being used for this labor, whichever amount is larger. And Shmuel says: He can take only the amount by which the value of the ship was diminished.

אמר רב פפא לא פליגי הא דעבידא לאגרא הא דלא עבידא לאגרא ואיבעית אימא הא והא דעבידא לאגרא הא דנחית ליה אדעתא דאגרא והא דנחית ליה אדעתא דגזלנותא

Rav Pappa said: They do not disagree. They were addressing different cases: This, i.e., Rav’s statement, is referring to a ship that is commonly available for rental. That, i.e., Shmuel’s statement, is referring to a ship that is not commonly available for rental. And if you wish, say instead: This and that statement are both referring to a ship that is commonly available for rental. This, Rav’s statement, is referring to a case where the one who seized the ship descended, i.e., took possession, with the intention of renting the ship. He pays for the rental. That, Shmuel’s statement, is referring to a case where the one who seized the ship descended with the intention of robbery, to use it without paying. He is regarded as a robber and pays only the amount by which its value was diminished.

גזל מטבע ונסדק [וכו׳] אמר רב הונא נסדק נסדק ממש נפסל פסלתו מלכות

§ The mishna teaches: If one robbed another of a coin and it cracked, he pays the value of the coin at the time of the robbery, as he has acquired it due to its change. But if the coin was invalidated, he says: That which is yours is before you. Since this is not a significant change, he has not acquired it. The Sages disagree with regard to the explanation of this halakha. Rav Huna says: When the mishna states that the coin cracked, it means that it actually cracked; when it says that the coin was invalidated, it means that it was invalidated by the government and is therefore unfit for use.

ורב יהודה אמר פסלתו מלכות נמי היינו נסדק אלא היכי דמי נפסל שפסלתו מדינה זו ויוצאה במדינה אחרת

And Rav Yehuda says: A coin invalidated by the government is the same as a coin that is cracked, because its complete loss of value is a significant change. But what are the circumstances of the mishna, in which a coin that was invalidated is not considered changed? It is a case where a coin was invalidated by the government in this province, and the residents there can no longer use it, but the coin still circulates and is in use in another province.

אמר ליה רב חסדא לרב הונא לדידך דאמרת נפסל פסלתו מלכות הרי פירות והרקיבו יין והחמיץ דכי פסלתו מלכות דמי וקתני משלם כשעת הגזילה

The Gemara clarifies Rav Huna’s opinion. Rav Ḥisda said to Rav Huna: According to your opinion, that you said that the term invalidated means that the coin was invalidated by the government, and the mishna rules that in that case the robber can return it as is, there is a difficulty. But what of the cases in the mishna of one who robbed another of produce and it rotted or one who robbed another of wine and it fermented, which are similar to a coin that was invalidated by the government, since none of these items are fit for use, and the mishna teaches that the robber pays according to their value at the time of the robbery because they underwent a change? Why would the halakha be different in the case of a coin that was invalidated by the government?

אמר ליה התם נשתנה טעמו וריחו הכא לא נשתנה

Rav Huna said to him: There, in the cases of produce and wine, its taste and its smell changed. Here, in the case of the coin that was invalidated, the coin itself did not change.

אמר ליה רבא לרב יהודה לדידך דאמרת פסלתו מלכות נמי היינו נסדק הרי תרומה ונטמאת דכי פסלתו מלכות דמי וקתני אומר לו הרי שלך לפניך

The Gemara clarifies Rav Yehuda’s opinion. Rava said to Rav Yehuda: According to your opinion, that you said that a coin that was invalidated by the government is the same as one that cracked, and the mishna rules that in that case the robber pays according to its value at the time of the robbery, there is a difficulty. But what of the case in the mishna of one who robbed another of teruma and it became impure, which is similar to a coin that was invalidated by the government, and the mishna teaches that the robber says to the robbery victim: That which is yours is before you.

אמר ליה התם לא מינכר היזיקה הכא מינכר היזיקה

Rav Yehuda said to him: There, in the case of teruma, the damage is not evident, since it is impossible to tell the difference between pure and impure items. Here, in the case of the coin, the damage is evident, since one can tell by looking at it that it is the type of coin that was invalidated.

איתמר המלוה את חבירו על המטבע ונפסלה המטבע רב אמר

§ With regard to a coin that was invalidated, it was stated that there was a dispute concerning the question: In the case of one who lends money to another on the condition that he repay the loan using a particular kind of coin, and that coin becomes invalidated, Rav says:

נותן לו מטבע היוצא באותה שעה ושמואל אמר יכול לומר לו לך הוציאו במישן אמר רב נחמן מסתברא מילתיה דשמואל דאית ליה אורחא למיזל למישן אבל לית ליה אורחא לא

The debtor gives him a coin that is in circulation at that time with which he repays the loan. And Shmuel says that the debtor can say to the creditor: I am giving you a coin like the one you gave me, although you cannot utilize it here. Go spend it in Meishan, i.e., a distant place where this coin is still in circulation. Rav Naḥman said: Shmuel’s statement is reasonable when the creditor has a way to go to Meishan, i.e., he intends to travel there, and therefore the debtor can tell him to spend the coin when he arrives at his destination. But if he has no way to go to Meishan, i.e., he does not intend to go there, the debtor may not give him these coins. Rather, he must give him coins that are in circulation in their current location.

איתיביה רבא לרב נחמן אין מחללין על המעות שאינם יוצאות כיצד היו לו מעות כוזביות ירושלמיות או של מלכים הראשונים אין מחללין הא של אחרונים דומיא דראשונים מחללין

Rava raised an objection to Rav Naḥman from a baraita (Tosefta, Ma’aser Sheni 1:6): One cannot desacralize second-tithe produce by transferring its sanctity onto coins that are not in circulation. How so? If one had coins of bar Kokheva [Kozeviyyot], coins of Jerusalem, or coins of earlier kings, all of which are no longer in use, one cannot desacralize second–tithe produce by transferring its sanctity onto them. Rava infers: But if one had coins of later, i.e., current, kings, that are similar to the coins of the earlier kings in that they have been invalidated in his location, since they are still valid elsewhere, one can desacralize the second-tithe produce by transferring its sanctity onto them. The baraita does not make a distinction as to whether the owner of the produce intends to travel to the location where those coins are in use or not.

אמר ליה הכא במאי עסקינן כשאין מלכיות מקפידות זו על זו

Rav Naḥman said to him: With what are we dealing here in the baraita? We are dealing with a case where the kingdoms are not particular with one another. They allow a coin that has been invalidated in their province to be taken out of their borders and spent in a province where it is valid. Since these coins can be given to those planning to travel to the location where it is valid, it is considered to be a valid coin even in the location of the one desacralizing the second-tithe produce.

אלא כי אמר שמואל כשמלכיות מקפידות זו על זו היכי מצי ממטי להו דממטי לה על ידי הדחק דלא בחשי ואי משכחי קפדי

The Gemara asks: But, according to this explanation, when Shmuel said that the debtor can repay his debt with invalidated coins only if the creditor intends to travel to a location where they are valid, he is speaking of a case where the kingdoms are particular with each other. If so, how can he bring these coins to Meishan without the authorities confiscating them? The Gemara responds: Shmuel is discussing a case where the creditor can bring them with difficulty, as in a case where the authorities do not search, but if they find any invalid coins they are particular to confiscate them. It is therefore possible to bring these coins into the other kingdom. Nevertheless, since the authorities are particular, one who does not plan to travel there will not be able to exchange these coins with anyone in his location.

תא שמע אין מחללין על מעות של כאן והן בבבל ושל בבל והן כאן של בבל והן בבבל מחללין קתני מיהת אין מחללין על מעות של כאן והן בבבל אף על גב דסופו למיסק להתם

The Gemara questions Shmuel’s opinion: Come and hear what was taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Ma’aser Sheni 1:6): One cannot desacralize second-tithe produce by transferring its sanctity onto money of Eretz Yisrael, i.e., here, when they, the coins and their owner, are in Babylonia. And one cannot do so onto money of Babylonia when they, the coins and their owner, are here in Eretz Yisrael. If one uses money of Babylonia and they are in Babylonia, one can desacralize the second-tithe produce. In any event, the baraita teaches: One cannot desacralize second-tithe produce by transferring its sanctity onto money of Eretz Yisrael, here, when they are in Babylonia. And this is stated even though they will ultimately ascend to there, Eretz Yisrael, as the very purpose of transferring the sanctity to the coins is to spend them in Jerusalem.

הכא במאי עסקינן כשמלכיות מקפידות זו על זו אי הכי של בבל והן בבבל למאי חזו חזו דזבין בהו בהמה ומסיק לירושלים

The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the kingdoms are especially particular with one another, and it is impossible to transport coins from one location to the other. The Gemara asks: If so, if the kingdoms are especially particular with one another, then with regard to the case in the baraita, in which sanctity is transferred onto money of Babylonia and they are in Babylonia, for what are these coins fit? In any case they cannot be brought to Jerusalem. The Gemara responds: They are fit for purchasing an animal with them in Babylonia that will be brought up to Jerusalem.

והתניא התקינו שיהו המעות יוצאות בירושלים מפני כך אמר רבי זירא לא קשיא כאן בזמן שיד ישראל תקיפה על אומות העולם כאן בזמן שיד אומות העולם תקיפה על עצמן

With regard to the statement of the baraita, that one cannot desacralize second-tithe produce by transferring its sanctity onto Babylonian money when in Eretz Yisrael, the Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The Sages instituted that all money shall circulate in Jerusalem because of this reason, i.e., so that Jews from all locations will be able to use their local currencies? Rabbi Zeira said: This is not difficult. Here, the baraita that states that all money is valid in Jerusalem is referring to a time when the authority of the Jewish people is dominant over the nations of the world and could enforce the rabbinic enactments. There, the baraita that states that sanctity may not be transferred onto Babylonian money when in Eretz Yisrael, is referring to a time when the authority of the nations of the world is dominant over them, i.e., the Jews, at which time foreign currency was not usable in Jerusalem.

תנו רבנן איזהו מטבע של ירושלים דוד ושלמה מצד אחד וירושלים עיר הקודש מצד אחר ואיזהו מטבע של אברהם אבינו זקן וזקינה מצד אחד ובחור ובתולה מצד אחר

Having mentioned the coins of Jerusalem, the Gemara notes: The Sages taught: What is the coin of ancient Jerusalem? The names David and Solomon were inscribed on one side, and Jerusalem the Holy City was on the other side. And what is the coin of Abraham our forefather? An old man and an old woman, representing Abraham and Sarah, were inscribed on one side, and a young man and a young woman, representing Isaac and Rebecca, were on the other side.

בעא מיניה רבא מרב חסדא המלוה את חבירו על המטבע והוסיפו עליו מהו אמר לו נותן לו מטבע היוצא באותה שעה אמר ליה ואפילו כי נפיא אמר ליה אין אמר ליה אפילו כי תרטיא אמר ליה אין

§ Rava inquired of Rav Ḥisda: What is the halakha in the case of one who lends money to another on the condition that he repay the loan in coin, i.e., with the specific denomination of a currency, and the government added to the size of the coin, so that a coin of the same denomination now weighs more? Is the debtor obligated to return the newly adjusted coin, or can he repay the debt according to the prior weight of the coin that he borrowed? Rav Ḥisda said to him: He gives him the coin that is in circulation at the time of the payment. Rava said to him: And is this the halakha even if the new coin is as large as a sieve? Rav Ḥisda said to him: Yes. Rava said to him: And is this the halakha even if it is as large as a quarter-kav [tartiya]? Rav Ḥisda said to him: Yes.

והא קא זיילין פירי אמר רב אשי חזינן אי מחמת טיבעא זיל מנכינן ליה

Rava challenged: But by increasing the weight of this coin, the produce has decreased in price, and since more produce can be purchased with this coin, giving it to the creditor as repayment is a form of interest. Rav Ashi said: We examine the situation: If the produce decreased in price due to the change in the weight of the coin, the debt is reduced for the debtor and the creditor is repaid with coins that equal the prior value of the loan.