Commentary for Bava Kamma 192:21

האי הלכה כר' מאיר הלכה כרבנן מיבעי ליה הכי קאמר למאי דאפכיתו ותניתו הלכה כרבי מאיר

HE CAN SAY TO HIM: 'HERE, TAKE YOUR OWN.' <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. R. Papa said: The expression IT BECAME OLD does not necessarily mean that it actually became old, for [the same law would apply] even where it had otherwise deteriorated. But do we not expressly learn. IT BECAME OLD?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which a temporary deterioration could hardly be included. ');">¹⁵</span> — This indicates that the deterioration has to be equivalent to its becoming old, i.e., where it will no more recover health. Mar Kashisha, the son of R. Hisda, said to R. Ashi: It has been expressly stated in the name of R. Johanan that even where a thief misappropriated a lamb which became a ram, or a calf which became an ox,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Although there is an inevitable and natural change.] ');">¹⁶</span> since the animal underwent a change while in his hands he would acquire title to it, so that if he subsequently slaughtered or sold it, it was his which he slaughtered and it was his which he sold.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [And he would be exempt from the threefold and fourfold restitution.] ');">¹⁷</span> He said to him: Did I not say to you that you should not transpose the names of scholars?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'people'. ');">¹⁸</span> That statement was made in the name of R. Elai.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not in that of R. Johanan: supra p. 379. ');">¹⁹</span> R. MEIR, HOWEVER. SAYS THAT IN THE CASE OF SLAVES HE MIGHT SAY TO THE OWNER, 'HERE TAKE YOUR OWN.' R. Hanina b. Abdimi said that Rab stated that the <i>halachah</i> is in accordance with R. Meir. But how could Rab abandon the view of the Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The representatives of the anonymous view of the majority cited first in the Mishnah. ');">²⁰</span> and act in accordance with R. Meir? — It may, however, be said that he did so because in the text of the [relevant] Baraitha the names were transposed. But again how could Rab abandon the text of the Mishnah and act in accordance with the Baraitha?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with the anonymous view of the majority cited in the Baraitha. ');">²¹</span> — Rab, even in the text of our Mishnah, had transposed the names. But still what was the reason of Rab for transposing the names in the text of the Mishnah because of that of the Baraitha? Why not, on the contrary, transpose the names in the text of the Baraitha because of that of our Mishnah? — It may be answered that Rab, in the text of our Mishnah too, was taught by his masters to have the names transposed. Or if you like I may say that [the text of a Mishnah] is not changed [in order to be harmonised with that of a Baraitha] only in the case where there is one against one, but where there is one against two,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., where two Baraithas are against the text of one Mishnah. ');">²²</span> it must be changed [as is indeed the case here]; for it was taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.M. 100a, q.v. for notes. ');">²³</span> If one bartered a cow for an ass and [the cow] gave birth to a calf [approximately at the very time of the barter], so also if one sold his handmaid and she gave birth to a child [approximately at the time of the sale], and one says that the birth took place while [the cow or handmaid was] in his possession and the other one is silent [on the matter], the former will obtain [the calf or child as the case may be], but if one said 'I don't know', and the other said 'I don't know', they would have to share it. If, however, one says [that the birth took place] when he was owner and the other says [that it took place] when he was owner, the vendor would have to swear that the birth took place when he was owner [and thus retain it], for all those who have to take an oath according to the law of the Torah, by taking the oath release themselves from payment;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shebu. VII, 1. ');">²⁴</span> this is the view of R. Meir. But the Sages say that an oath can be imposed neither in the case of slaves nor of real property.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Shebu. VI, 5. It is thus evident that it was the majority of the Rabbis and not R. Meir who considered slaves to be subject to the law of real property. ');">²⁵</span> Now [since the text of our Mishnah should have been reversed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case it was the Rabbis who maintained that slaves are subject to the law of real property. ');">²⁶</span> why did Rab<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Meaning that slaves are on the same footing as real property. ');">²⁷</span> state that] the <i>halachah</i> is in accordance with R. Meir? Should he not have said that the <i>halachah</i> is in accordance with the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Meaning that slaves are on the same footing as real property. ');">²⁷</span> — What he said was this: According to the text you taught with the names transposed, the <i>halachah</i> is in accordance with R. Meir.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Meaning that slaves are on the same footing as real property. ');">²⁷</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 192:21. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.