טז שבח פירות היכי דמי כגון שגזל שדה מחבירו ומכרה לאחר והשביחה והרי היא יוצאה מתחת ידו כשהוא גובה
16 Come and hear: [If wool was handed over to a dyer] to dye it red but he dyed it black, or to dye it black but he dyed it red, R. Meir says that he would have to pay [the owner of the wool] for the value of the wool.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For by acting against the instructions of the owner he rendered himself liable to the law of robbery; Mishnah infra 100b. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> [It thus appears that] he had to pay only for the original value of the wool but not for the combined value of the wool and the improvement [on account of the colour]. Now, if you suppose that R. Meir held that a change would not transfer ownership, why should he not have to pay for the combined value of the wool and the improvement? Does this therefore not prove that R. Meir held that a change would transfer ownership and that here [in the case of the calf] it was only a fine that R. Meir imposed [upon the robber]? — This could indeed be proved from it. Some even say that this question was never so much as raised; for since Rab transposed [the names in the Mishnah] and read thus: If one misappropriated a cow which became old, or slaves who became old, he would have to pay in accordance with [the value at] the time of the robbery;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra p. 561. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> this is the view of R. Meir, whereas the Sages say that in the case of slaves the robber would be entitled to say, Here, take your own',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra p. 561. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> it is quite certain that according to R. Meir a change would transfer ownership, and that here [in the case of a calf] it was only a fine that R. Meir imposed [upon the robber]. But if a question was raised, it was this: Was the fine imposed only in the case of wilful misappropriation whereas in the case of inadvertent misappropriation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in the case of the dyer, supra p. 552. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> the fine was not imposed, or perhaps even for inadvertent misappropriation the fine was also imposed? — Come and hear: Five [kinds of creditors] are allowed to distrain only on the free assets [of the debtor];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not if the landed property is already in the hands of a third party such as a purchaser and the like. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> they are as follows: [creditors for] produce,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as where a field full of produce was taken away in the hands of a purchaser through the fault of the vendor: the amount due to the purchaser for his loss of the actual field could be recovered even from property already in the hands of (subsequent) purchasers, whereas the amount due to him for the value of the produce he lost could be recovered only from property still in the hands of the vendor; cf. Git. V, I and B.M. 14b. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> for Amelioration showing profits,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as where the purchaser spent money on improving the ground which was taken away from him through the fault of the vendor. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> for an undertaking to maintain the wife's son or the wife's daughter,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. also Keth. XII, 1. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> for a bond of liability without a warranty of indemnity<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., where the particular clause making the property security was omitted in the document. V. Keth. 51b. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> and for the <i>kethubah</i> of a wife where no property is made security.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., where the particular clause making the property security was omitted in the document. V. Keth. 51b. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> Now, what authority have you heard lay down that the omission to make the property security<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., where the particular clause making the property security was omitted in the document. V. Keth. 51b. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> is not a mere scribal error<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But has legal consequences. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> if not R. Meir?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.M. I, 6 and ibid. 14a. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> And it is yet stated: 'Creditors for produce and Amelioration showing profits [may distrain on free assets in the hands of the debtor].' Now, who [are creditors for Amelioration showing] profits?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'how is this possible?' ');"><sup>25</sup></span> They come in, do they not, where the vendor has misappropriated a field from his fellow and sold it to another who ameliorated it and from whose hands it was subsequently taken away. [The law then is that] when the purchaser comes to distrain