Related%20passage for Bava Kamma 60:20

איני והא רב הונא אפקר חושלי רב אדא בר אהבה אפקר

a penalty is imposed so that neither the principal nor the interest is enforced; these are the words of R. Meir, whereas the Sages maintain that the principal is enforced though not the interest.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. B.M. 72a. ');">¹⁶</span> Now, can we not say that Rab adopts the view of R. Meir<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Extending the penalty also to the corpus. ');">¹⁷</span> whereas Ze'ire follows that of the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the Sages who maintain that the penalty attaches only to the increase. ');">¹⁸</span> — Rab may explain [himself] to you [as follows]: 'I made my statement even according to the Rabbis: for the Rabbis maintain their view only there, where the principal as such is quite lawful, whereas here in the case of nuisances the corpus itself is liable to do damage.' Ze'ire [on the other hand] may explain [himself] to you [thus]: 'I made my statement even in accordance with R. Meir; for R. Meir expressed his view only there, where immediately, at the time of the bill having been drawn up, [the evil had been committed] by stipulating the usury, whereas here in the case of nuisances, who can assert that [special] damage will result?' Might not one suggest [the argument between Rab and Ze'ire to have been] the point at issue between these Tannaim? For it was taught: If a man removes straw and stubble into the public ground to be formed into manure and damage results to another person, he is liable for the damage, and whoever seizes them first acquires title to them. They are prohibited [to be taken possession of] on account of [the law of] robbery. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says: Whoever creates any nuisances on public ground and causes [special] damage is liable to compensate, though whoever takes possession of them first acquires title to them, and this may be done irrespective of [the law of] robbery. Now, is not the text a contradiction in itself? You read, 'Whoever seizes them first acquires title to them,' then you state [in the same breath], 'They are prohibited [to be taken possession of] on account of [the law of] robbery'! It must therefore mean thus: 'Whoever seizes them first acquires title to them,' viz., to their increase, whereas, 'they are prohibited to be taken possession of on account of [the law of] robbery,' refers to their corpus. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel thereupon proceeded to state that even concerning their corpus, 'whoever seizes them first, acquires title to them.' Now, according to Ze'ire, his view must unquestionably have been the point at issue between these Tannaim,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For R. Simeon b. Gamaliel is certainly against his view. ');">¹⁹</span> but according to Rab, are we similarly to say that [his view] was the point at issue between these Tannaim? — Rab may say to you: 'It is [indeed] unanimously held that the penalty must extend to the corpus for the purpose [of discouraging the idea] of gain; the point at issue [between the Tannaim] here is whether this <i>halachah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To extend the penalty to the corpus. ');">²⁰</span> should be made the practical rule of the law'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As to whether people should be encouraged to avail themselves of it, or not. ');">²¹</span> For it was stated: R. Huna on behalf of Rab said: This <i>halachah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To extend the penalty to the corpus. ');">²⁰</span> should not be made the practical rule of the law,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the sake of not disturbing public peace. ');">²²</span> whereas R. Adda b. Ahabah said: This <i>halachah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To extend the penalty to the corpus. ');">²⁰</span> should be made the practical rule of the law. But is this really so? Did not R. Huna declare barley [that had been spread out on public ground] ownerless, [just as] R. Adda b. Ahabah declared

Explore related%20passage for Bava Kamma 60:20. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.