Commentary for Bava Kamma 190:16

אמר ליה והא מעשים בכל יום וקא מגבי שמואל אפי' שבח המגיע לכתפים אמר ליה לא קשיא

R. Ashi said: When we were at the School of R. Kahana, a question was raised with regard to the statement of R. Simeon that the robber will be paid to the extent of a half, a third or a fourth [of the increase in value] whether at the time of his parting with the misappropriated article he can be paid in specie, or is he perhaps entitled to receive his portion out of the body of the misappropriated animal. The answer was found in the statement made by R. Nahman in the name of Samuel: 'There are three cases where increased value will be appraised and paid in money. They are as follow's: [In the settlement of accounts] between a firstborn and a plain son,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the firstborn son has two portions in the estate as it was left at the time of the death of the father, but only one portion in the increased value due to amelioration after the father's death, so that by taking two portions in the estate the firstborn would have to pay back the other sons their appropriate portions in the increased value of the additional portion taken by him; cf. B.B. 124a. ');">¹²</span> between a creditor and a purchaser.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a creditor distraining on a field that originally belonged to his debtor but which was subsequently disposed of or inherited by heirs and the purchaser or heirs increased its value by amelioration. ');">¹³</span> and between a creditor<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a creditor distraining on a field that originally belonged to his debtor but which was subsequently disposed of or inherited by heirs and the purchaser or heirs increased its value by amelioration. ');">¹³</span> and heirs.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.M. 110b. ');">¹⁴</span> Said Rabina to R. Ashi: Did Samuel really say that a creditor will have to pay the purchaser for increased value? Did Samuel not state<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.M. ibid. and 14b; Bk. 42a. ');">¹⁵</span> that a creditor distrains even on the increment?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without paying for it, v. B.M. ibid. ');">¹⁶</span> — He replied: There is no difficulty, as the former ruling applies to an increment which could reach the shoulders to be carried away.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As where the produce is quite ripe and could be separated from the ground in which case it is the property of the purchaser. V. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) p. 183. n. 3. ');">¹⁷</span> whereas the latter ruling deals with an increment which could not reach the shoulders to be carried away.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., which is inseparable from the ground and which is distrained on together with the field by the creditor. ');">¹⁸</span> He rejoined:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Rabina to R. Ashi. ');">¹⁹</span> Do not cases happen every day where Samuel distrains even on an increment which could reach the shoulders to be carried away? — He replied: There is still no difficulty,

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 190:16. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.