Commentary for Bava Kamma 193:16

איתמר המלוה את חבירו על המטבע ונפסלה המטבע רב אמר

He thereupon said to him: [If so,] I withdraw. It was stated: If one forcibly seizes another's ship and performs some work with it, Rab said that if the owner wishes he may demand payment for its hire, or if he wishes he may demand payment for its wear and tear. But Samuel said: He may demand only for its wear and tear. Said R. Papa: They do not differ as Rab referred to the case where the ship was made for hire and Samuel to the case where it was not made for hire. Or if you like, I can say that both statements deal with a case where it was made for hire, but whereas [Rab deals with a case] where possession was taken of it with the intention of paying the hire,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the hire may be claimed. ');">¹²</span> '[Samuel refers to one] where possession was taken of it with the intention of robbery.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case no more than compensation for the wear and tear could be enforced. ');">¹³</span> IF HE MISAPPROPRIATED A COIN AND IT BECAME CRACKED etc. R. Huna said: IT BECAME CRACKED means that it actually cracked, [and] IT WENT OUT OF USE means that the Government declared it obsolete. But Rab Judah said that where the Government declared the coin obsolete it would be tantamount to its being disfigured,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it would nowhere have currency. ');">¹⁴</span> and what was meant by IT WENT OUT OF USE is that the inhabitants of a particular province rejected it while it was still in circulation in another province. R. Hisda said to R. Huna: According to your statement that IT WENT OUT OF USE meant that the Government declared it obsolete, why [in our Mishnah] in the case of fruits that became stale, or wine that became sour, which appears to be equivalent to a coin that was declared obsolete by the Government, is it stated that HE WOULD HAVE TO PAY IN ACCORDANCE WITH [THE VALUE AT] THE TIME OF THE ROBBERY?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the change transferred the ownership. ');">¹⁵</span> — He replied: There [in the case of the fruits and the wine] the taste and the smell changed, whereas here [in the case of the coin] there was no change [in the substance]. Rabbah on the other hand said to Rab Judah: According to your statement that where the Government declared the coin obsolete it would be tantamount to its having been cracked, why in [our Mishnah in] the case of <i>terumah</i> that became defiled, which appears to resemble a coin that was declared obsolete by the Government<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For just as the latter case was proscribed by the political realm, the former was proscribed by the spiritual realm. ');">¹⁶</span> is it stated that he can say to him, 'HERE, TAKE YOUR OWN'? — He replied: There [in the case of the <i>terumah</i>] the defect<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By becoming defiled. ');">¹⁷</span> is not noticeable, whereas here [in the case of the coin] the defect is noticeable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the coins which are in circulation have a different appearance. ');">¹⁸</span> It was stated: If a man lends his fellow [something] on [condition that it should be repaid in] a certain coin, and that coin became obsolete, Rab said

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 193:16. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.