Bava Kamma 191

הא דמסיק ביה כשיעור ארעא ושבחא הא דלא מסיק ביה אלא כשיעור ארעא

as this is so only where the amount of the debt owing to the creditor covers both the land and the increment, whereas the former ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ordering payment for the amelioration. ');">¹</span> applies where [the debt due to him] is only to the extent of the land. He rejoined: I grant you that on the view<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.M. 15b and 110b. ');">²</span>

אמר ליה הניחא למאן דאמר אי אית ליה זוזי ללוקח לא מצי מסלק ליה לבעל חוב שפיר אלא למ"ד אי אית ליה זוזי ללוקח מצי מסלק ליה לבעל חוב לימא ליה אי הוו לי זוזי הוה מסלקינא לך מכוליה ארעא השתא הב לי גריוא דארעא שיעור שבחאי

that [even] if the purchaser possesses money he has no right to bar the creditor from land by paying in specie, your argument would be sound, but according to the view that a purchaser possessing money can bar the creditor from the field by paying him in specie, why should he not say to the creditor, 'If I had had money, I would surely have been able to bar you from the whole field [by paying you in specie]; now also therefore I am entitled to be left with a griva<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The size of a field needed for a se'ah of seed. ');">³</span> of land corresponding to the value of my amelioration'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then should the creditor distrain on the whole field together with the amelioration? ');">⁴</span>

אמר ליה הכא במאי עסקינן כגון דשויה ניהליה אפותיקי דאמר ליה לא יהא לך פרעון אלא מזה:

— He replied: We are dealing here with a case where the debtor expressly made that field a security, as where he said to him: 'You shall not be paid from anything but from the field.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the purchaser can in no circumstance bar the creditor from the field. ');">⁵</span> Raba stated: [There is no question] that where the robber improved [the misappropriated article] and then sold it, or where the robber improved [the misappropriated article] and then left it to his heirs, he has genuinely sold or left to his heirs the increment he has created.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the purchaser (or heir) will be entitled to the half or third or quarter in profits to which the robber would have been entitled, according to the view of R. Simeon. ');">⁶</span>

אמר רבא גזל והשביח ומכר וגזל והשביח והוריש מה שהשביח מכר מה שהשביח הוריש:

Raba [however] asked: What would be the law where [after having bought the misappropriated article from the robber] the purchaser improved it? After asking the question he himself gave the answer: That what the former sold the latter, was surely all rights<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 32. ');">⁷</span> which might subsequently accrue to him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the purchaser (or heir) will be entitled to the half or third or quarter in profits to which the robber would have been entitled, according to the view of R. Simeon. ');">⁶</span>

בעי רבא השביח לוקח מהו בתר דבעיא הדר פשטה מה מכר ראשון לשני כל זכות שתבא לידו:

Raba [again] asked: What would be the law where a heathen<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who neither respects nor feels bound by Rabbinic enactments. ');">⁸</span> [misappropriated an article and] improved it? — Said R. Aha of Difti to Rabina: Shall we trouble ourselves to make an enactment<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That according to R. Simeon payment is to be made for amelioration to the extent of a half or third or quarter. ');">⁹</span>

בעי רבא השביח עובד כוכבים מהו א"ל רב אחא מדפתי לרבינא תקנתא לעובד כוכבים ניקו ונעבוד אמר ליה לא צריכא כגון דזבניה לישראל סוף סוף הבא מחמת עובד כוכבים הרי הוא כעובד כוכבים

for [the benefit of] a heathen? — He said to him: No; the query might refer to the case where. e.g., he sold it to an Israelite. [But he retorted:] Be that as it may, he who comes to claim through a heathen [predecessor], could surely not expect better treatment than the heathen himself. — No: the query could still refer to the case where, e.g., an Israelite had misappropriated an article and sold it to a heathen who improved it and who subsequently sold it to another Israelite. What then should be the law? Shall we say that since an Israelite was in possession at the beginning and an Israelite was in possession at the end, our Rabbis would also here make [use of] the enactment, or perhaps since a heathen intervened our Rabbis would not make [use of] the enactment? — Let it remain undecided. R. papa stated: If one misappropriated a palm tree from his fellow and cut it down, he would not acquire title to it even though he threw it from [the other's] field into his own land, the reason being that it was previously called palm tree and is now also called palm tree.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [The change involved does not confer ownership enabling him to make restitution by payment in money.] ');">¹⁰</span>

לא צריכא כגון דגזל ישראל וזבנה ניהליה והשביחה עובד כוכבים והדר עובד כוכבים וזבנה לישראל מאי מי אמרינן כיון דמעיקרא ישראל והדר ישראל עבדי רבנן תקנתא או דלמא כיון דאיכא עובד כוכבים באמצע לא עבדו ליה רבנן תקנתא תיקו:

[So also] where out of the palm tree he made logs he would not acquire title to them, as even now they would still be called logs of a palm tree.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [The change involved does not confer ownership enabling him to make restitution by payment in money.] ');">¹⁰</span> It is only where out of the logs he made beams that he would acquire title to them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 552. n. 6. ');">¹¹</span>

אמר רב פפא האי מאן דגזל דיקלא מחבריה וקטליה אע"ג דשדיא מארעא לארעא דידיה לא קני מאי טעמא מעיקרא דיקלא מיקרי והשתא נמי דיקלא מיקרי דיקלא ועביד גובי לא קני השתא מיהת גובי דדיקלא מיקרי

But if out of big beams he made small beams he would not acquire title to them,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 552. n. 5. ');">¹²</span> though were he to have made them into boards he would acquire title to them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 552. n. 6. ');">¹¹</span>

גובי ועבדינהו כשורי קני כשורי רברבי ועבדינהו כשורי זוטרי לא קני עבדינהו קצוצייתא קני

Raba said: If one misappropriated a <i>Lulab</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a palm branch used for the festive wreath on the Feast of Tabernacles in accordance with Lev. XXIII, 40. ');">¹³</span> and converted it into leaves he would acquire title to them, as originally it was called <i>Lulab</i> whereas now they are mere leaves.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 552. n. 6. ');">¹¹</span>

אמר רבא האי מאן דגזל לוליבא ועבדינהו הוצי קני דמעיקרא לוליבא מיקרי והשתא הוצי הוצי ועבדינהו חופיא קני מעיקרא הוצי והשתא חופיא חופיא ועבדיה שרשורא לא קני מאי טעמא דהדר סתר ליה והוי חופיא

So also where out of the leaves he made a broom he would acquire title to it, as originally they were leaves whereas now they form a broom,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 543, n. 6. ');">¹⁴</span> but where out of the broom he made a rope he would not acquire title to it since if he were to undo it, it would again become a broom.

בעי רב פפא נחלקה התיומת מהו תא שמע דאמר רבי מתון אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי ניטלה התיומת פסול

R. papa asked: What would be the law where the central leaf<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Suk. 32a and Rashi. ');">¹⁵</span> of the <i>Lulab</i> became split? — Come and hear: R. Mathon said that R. Joshua b. Levi stated that if the central leaf of the <i>Lulab</i> was removed the <i>Lulab</i> would be disqualified [for ritual purposes].