Bava Kamma 186

Chapter 186

א מתני׳ <big>הגוזל</big> עצים ועשאן כלים צמר ועשאן בגדים משלם כשעת הגזלה

1 MISHNAH. IF ONE MISAPPROPRIATES PIECES OF WOOD AND MAKES UTENSILS OUT OF THEM, OR PIECES OF WOOL AND MAKES GARMENTS OUT OF THEM, HE HAS TO PAY FOR THEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH [THEIR VALUE AT] THE TIME OF THE ROBBERY.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., of the pieces of wood and wool but not of the utensils and garments respectively, as by the change which took place he acquired title to them; cf. supra p. 384. ');">1

ב גזל פרה מעוברת וילדה רחל טעונה וגזזה משלם דמי פרה העומדת לילד ודמי רחל העומדת ליגזז

2 IF ONE MISAPPROPRIATED A PREGNANT COW WHICH MEANWHILE GAVE BIRTH [TO A CALF], OR A SHEEP BEARING WOOL WHICH HE SHEARED, HE WOULD PAY THE VALUE OF A COW WHICH WAS ABOUT TO GIVE BIRTH [TO A CALF], AND THE VALUE OF A SHEEP WHICH WAS READY TO BE SHORN [RESPECTIVELY]. BUT IF HE MISAPPROPRIATED A COW WHICH BECAME PREGNANT WHILE WITH HIM AND THEN GAVE BIRTH, OR A SHEEP WHICH WHILE WITH HIM GREW WOOL WHICH HE SHEARED, HE WOULD PAY IN ACCORDANCE WITH [THE VALUE AT] THE TIME OF THE ROBBERY. THIS IS THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE: ALL ROBBERS HAVE TO PAY IN ACCORDANCE WITH [THE VALUE OF THE MISAPPROPRIATED ARTICLES AT] THE TIME OF THE ROBBERY.

ג גזל פרה ונתעברה אצלו וילדה רחל ונטענה אצלו וגזזה משלם כשעת הגזלה זה הכלל כל הגזלנים משלמין כשעת הגזלה:

3 GEMARA. Shall we say that it is only where he actually made utensils out of the pieces of wood [that the Mishnaic ruling will apply], whereas if he merely planed them this would not be so?2

ד <big>גמ׳</big> אמרי עצים ועשאן כלים אין שיפן לא צמר ועשאן בגדים אין ליבנן לא

4 Again, it is only where he made garments out of the wool that this will be so, whereas where he merely bleached it this would not be so! But could not a contradiction be raised from the following: 'One who misappropriated pieces of wood and planed them, stones and chiselled them, wool and bleached it or flax and cleansed it, would have to pay in accordance with [the value] at the time of the robbery'?3

ה ורמינהי גזל עצים ושיפן אבנים וסיתתן צמר וליבנן פשתן ונקהו משלם כשעת הגזלה

5 — Said Abaye: The Tanna of our Mishnah stated the ruling where the change [in the article misappropriated] is only such as is recognised by the Rabbis, that is, where it can still revert [to its former condition] and of course it applies all the more where the change is such4

ו אמר אביי תנא דידן קתני שינוי דרבנן דהדרא וכל שכן שינוי דאורייתא

6 as is recognised by the pentateuch:5

ז עצים ועשאן כלים בעצים משופין ומאי נינהו נסרים דשינוי דהדר לברייתא הוא דאי בעי משליף להו צמר ועשאן בגדים בצמר טווי דשינוי דהדר לברייתא הוא דאי בעי סתר ליה וכל שכן שינוי דאורייתא

7 [for the expression ONE WHO MISAPPROPRIATES] PIECES OF WOOD AND MAKES OUT OF THEM UTENSILS refers to pieces of wood already planed, such as ready-made boards, in which a reversion to the previous condition is still possible, since if he likes he can easily pull the boards out [and thus have them as they were previously]; PIECES OF WOOL AND MADE GARMENTS OUT OF THEE also refers to wool which was already spun, in which [similarly] a reversion to the previous condition is possible, since if he likes he can pull out the threads and restore them to the previous condition; the same law would apply all the more in the case of a change [where the article could no more revert to the previous condition and] which would thus be recognised by the pentateuch.5

ח ותנא ברא שינוי דאורייתא קתני ושינוי דרבנן לא קתני

8 But the Tanna of the Baraitha deals only with a change [where the article could no more revert to its previous condition and] which would thus be recognised by the pentateuch, but does not deal with a change [in which the article could revert to its previous condition and which would be] recognised only by the Rabbis. R. Ashi, however, said: The Tanna of our [Mishnah also] deals with a change which would be recognised by the pentateuch, for by PIECES OF WOOD AND MAKES UTENSILS OUT OF THEM he means clubs, which were changed by planing them; by PIECES OF WOOL AND MAKES GARMENTS OUT OF THEM he similarly means felt cloths, which involves a change that can no more revert to its previous condition.

ט רב אשי אמר תנא דידן נמי שינוי דאורייתא קתני עצים ועשאן כלים בוכאני דהיינו שיפן צמר ועשאן בגדים נמטי דהיינו שינוי דלא הדר

9 But should bleaching be considered a change?6

י וליבון מי הוי שינוי ורמינהי לא הספיק ליתנו לו עד שצבעו פטור לבנו ולא צבעו חייב

10 Could no contradiction be raised [from the following]: 'If the owner did not manage to give the first of the fleece to the priest until it had already been dyed, he would be exempt,7

יא אמר אביי לא קשיא הא רבי שמעון הא רבנן דתניא גזזו טוואו וארגו אין מצטרף לבנו רבי שמעון אומר אין מצטרף וחכמים אומרים מצטרף

11 but if he only bleached it without having dyed it, he would still be liable'?8

יב רבא אמר הא והא רבי שמעון ולא קשיא הא דנפציה נפוצי הא דסרקיה סרוקי

12 — Said Abaye: This is no difficulty, as the former statement is in accordance with R. Simeon and the latter in accordance with the Rabbis; for it was taught: 'If after the owner had shorn his sheep he span the wool or wove it, this portion would not be taken into account<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In regard to the first fleece offering the minimum of which is according to R. Dosa b. Harkinas the weight of seven maneh and a half collected equally from not less than five sheep, but according to the Rabbis one maneh and a half collected equally from the same number of sheep would suffice; cf. Hul. XI, 2. A maneh amounts to twenty-five sela's; for Samuel's view according to the Rabbis cf ibid. 137b. ');">9

יג רבי חייא בר אבין אמר הא דחווריה חוורי הא דכבריה כברויי

13 [with the other wool which was still left in a raw state];10

יד השתא יש לומר צבע לרבי שמעון לא הוי שינוי ליבון הוי שינוי דתניא גזז ראשון ראשון וצבעו ראשון ראשון וטוואו ראשון ראשון וארגו אין מצטרף רבי שמעון בן יהודה אומר משום ר' שמעון צבעו מצטרף

14 but if he only purified it, R. Simeon says: It would [still] not be taken into account, whereas the Sages say that it would be taken into account. But Raba said that both statements might be in accordance with R. Simeon, and there would still be no difficulty, as in one case11

טו אמר אביי לא קשיא הא רבנן אליבא דר"ש הא ר"ש בן יהודה אליבא דר"ש

15 [the process of bleaching was] by beating the wool [where no actual change took place], whereas in the other case12

טז רבא אמר לעולם לא פליגי רבנן עליה דרבי שמעון בן יהודה ושאני צבע הואיל ויכול להעבירו ע"י צפון וכי קתני התם לא הספיק ליתנו לו עד שצבעו פטור ואוקימנא כדברי הכל בקלא אילן דלא עבר

16 the wool was corded with a comb. R. Hiyya b. Abin said that in one case11

יז אמר אביי ר' שמעון בן יהודה ובית שמאי ור' אליעזר בן יעקב ור"ש בן אלעזר ורבי ישמעאל כולהו סבירא להו שינוי במקומו עומד רבי שמעון בן יהודה הא דאמרן

17 the wool was merely washed [so that no actual change took place]. whereas in the other12

יח ב"ש מאי היא דתני' נתן לה חטין באתננה ועשאן סולת זיתים ועשאן שמן ענבים ועשאן יין תני חדא אסור ותניא אידך מותר ואמר רב יוסף תני גוריון

18 it was whitened with sulphur. But since even dyeing is according to R. Simeon not considered a change, how could bleaching be considered a change, for was it not taught: 'Where the owner had shorn one sheep after another and in the interval dyed the [respective] fleeces, [or shorn] one after another and in the interval spun the wool, [or shorn] one after another and in the interval wove the wool, this portion would not be taken into account,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In regard to the first fleece offering the minimum of which is according to R. Dosa b. Harkinas the weight of seven maneh and a half collected equally from not less than five sheep, but according to the Rabbis one maneh and a half collected equally from the same number of sheep would suffice; cf. Hul. XI, 2. A maneh amounts to twenty-five sela's; for Samuel's view according to the Rabbis cf ibid. 137b. ');">9 but R. Simeon b. Judah said in the name of R. Simeon13 that if he [only] dyed the wool it would be taken into account'?14 — Said Abaye: There is no difficulty, as the former statement was made by the Rabbis according to R. Simeon whereas the latter15 was made by R. Simeon b. Judah according to R. Simeon. But Raba said: You may still say that the Rabbis did not differ from R. Simeon b. Judah on this point,16 for dyeing might be different, the reason being that since the colour could be removed by soap, [it is not considered a change], and as to the statement made there, 'If the owner did not manage to give the first of his fleece to the priest until it had already been dyed he would be exempt' which has been stated to be accepted unanimously, this deals with a case where it was dyed with indigo [which could not be removed by soap]. Abaye said: R. Simeon b. Judah, Beth Shammai, R. Eliezer b. Jacob. R. Simeon b. Eleazar and R. Ishmael all maintain that a change leaves the article in its previous status: R. Simeon b. Judah here in the text quoted by us; but what about Beth Shammai? — As it was taught:17 'Where he gave her as her hire wheat of which she made flour, or olives of which she made oil, or grapes of which she made wine,' one [Baraitha] taught that 'the produce is forbidden to be sacrificed upon the altar,' whereas another [Baraitha] taught 'it is permitted'. and R. Joseph said: Gorion

Previous Chapter Next Chapter