Bava Kamma 192

מאי לאו הוא הדין לנחלקה לא ניטלה שאני דהא חסר לה

Now, would not the same law apply where it was merely split?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Should it be disqualified, it would, if occurring whilst in the possession of the robber, be considered a change and confer ownership.] ');">¹</span>

איכא דאמרי ת"ש דא"ר מתון א"ר יהושע בן לוי נחלקה התיומת נעשה כמי שנטלה ופסול ש"מ

— No; the case where it was removed is different, as the leaf is then missing altogether. Some [on the other hand] read thus. Come and hear what R. Mathon said, that R. Joshua b. Levi stated that if the central leaf was split it would be considered as if it was altogether removed and the <i>Lulab</i> would be disqualified;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Should it be disqualified, it would, if occurring whilst in the possession of the robber, be considered a change and confer ownership.] ');">¹</span>

אמר רב פפא האי מאן דגזל עפרא מחבריה ועבדיה לבינתא לא קני מאי טעמא דהדר משוי ליה עפרא לבינתא ועבדיה עפרא קני מאי אמרת דלמא הדר ועביד ליה לבינתא האי לבינתא אחריתי הוא ופנים חדשות באו לכאן

which would solve [R. papa's question].

ואמר רב פפא האי מאן דגזל נסכא מחבריה ועביד זוזי לא קני מאי טעמא הדר עביד להו נסכא זוזי ועבדינהו נסכא קני מאי אמרת הדר עביד להו זוזי פנים חדשות באו לכאן

R. papa [further] said: If one misappropriated sand from another and made a brick out of it, he would not acquire title to it, the reason being that it could again be made into sand, but if he converted a brick into sand he would acquire title to it. For should you object that he could perhaps make the sand again into a brick, [it may be said that] that brick would be [not the original but] another brick, as it would be a new entity which would be produced.

שחימי ועבדינהו חדתי לא קני חדתי ועבדינהו שחימי קני מאי אמרת הדר עביד להו חדתי מידע ידיע שיחמייהו:

R. Papa [further] said: If one misappropriated bullion of silver from another and converted it into coins, he would not acquire title to them, the reason being that he could again convert them into bullion, but if out of coins he made bullion he would acquire title to it. For should you object that he can again convert it into coins, [my answer is that] it would be a new entity which would be produced. If [the coins were] blackened and he made them look new he would thereby not acquire title to them,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 543. n. 5. ');">²</span>

זה הכלל כל הגזלנין משלמין כשעת הגזלה: (זה הכלל) לאתויי מאי לאתויי הא דאמר ר' אלעא גנב טלה ונעשה איל עגל ונעשה שור נעשה שינוי בידו וקנאו טבח ומכר שלו הוא טובח שלו הוא מוכר

but if they were new and he made them black he would acquire title to them, for should you object that he could make them look again new, [it may be said that] their blackness will surely always be noticeable.

ההוא גברא דגזל פדנא דתורי מחבריה אזל כרב בהו כרבא זרע בהו זרעא לסוף אהדרינהו למריה אתא לקמיה דרב נחמן אמר להו זילו שומו שבחא דאשבח

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. What additional fact is the expression. THIS IS THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE intended to introduce? — It is meant to introduce that which R. Elai said: If a thief misappropriated a lamb which became a ram, or a calf which became an ox, as the animal underwent a change while in his hands he would acquire title to it, so that if he subsequently slaughtered or sold it, it was his which he slaughtered and it was his which he sold.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 379. ');">³</span>

אמר ליה רבא תורי אשבח ארעא לא אשבח אמר מי קאמינא נשיימו כוליה פלגא קאמינא א"ל סוף סוף גזילה הוא וקא הדרה בעינא דתנן כל הגזלנין משלמין כשעת הגזלה

A certain man who misappropriated a yoke of oxen from his fellow went and did some ploughing with them and also sowed with them some seeds and at last returned them to their owner. When the case came before R. Nahman he said [to the sheriffs of the court]: 'Go forth and appraise the increment [added to the field].' But Raba said to him: Were only the oxen instrumental in the increment, and did the land contribute nothing to the increment?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then should the whole amount of the increase due to the amelioration be paid to the plaintiff? ');">⁴</span>

אמר ליה לא אמינא לך כי יתיבנא בדינא לא תימא לי מידי דאמר הונא חברין עלאי אנא ושבור מלכא אחי בדינא האי אינש גזלנא עתיקא הוא ובעינא דאיקנסיה:

— He replied: Did I ever order payment of the full appraisement of the increment? I surely meant only half of it. He, however, rejoined:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Raba to R. Nahman. ');">⁵</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> גזל בהמה והזקינה עבדים והזקינו משלם כשעת הגזלה רבי מאיר אומר בעבדים אומר לו הרי שלך לפניך

Be that as it may, since the oxen were misappropriated they merely have to be returned intact, as we have indeed learnt: ALL ROBBERS HAVE TO PAY IN ACCORDANCE WITH [THE VALUE] AT THE TIME OF THE ROBBERY. [Why then pay for any work done with them?] — He replied: Did I not say to you that when I am sitting in judgment you should not make any suggestions to me, for Huna our colleague said with reference to me that I and 'King' Shapur<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Meaning Samuel, who was a friend of the Persian King Shapur I, and who is sometimes referred to in this way; cf. B.B. 115b. [To have conferred the right of bearing the name of the ruling monarch, together with the title 'tham', 'mighty'. was deemed the highest honour among the Persians, and 'Malka', 'King'. is apparently the Aramaic counterpart of the Persian title 'Malka' (v. Funk, Die Juden in Babylonien. I, 73). On Samuel's supreme authority in Babylon in matters of civil law, v. Bek. 49b.] ');">⁶</span>

גזל מטבע ונסדק פירות והרקיבו יין והחמיץ משלם כשעת הגזלה

are [like] brothers in respect of civil law? That person [who misappropriated the pair of oxen] is a notorious robber, and I want to penalise him.

מטבע ונפסל תרומה ונטמאת חמץ ועבר עליו הפסח בהמה ונתעבדה בה עבירה או שנפסלה מעל גבי המזבח או שהיתה יוצאה ליסקל אומר לו הרי שלך לפניך:

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF ONE MISAPPROPRIATED AN ANIMAL AND IT BECAME OLD, OR SLAVES AND THEY BECAME OLD, HE WOULD HAVE TO PAY ACCORDING TO [THE VALUE AT] THE TIME OF THE ROBBERY.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the change transferred the ownership to him. ');">⁷</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רב פפא לא הזקינה הזקינה ממש אלא אפי' כחשה והא אנן הזקינה תנן כחשה כגון הזקינה דלא הדר בריא

R. MEIR, HOWEVER, SAYS THAT IN THE CASE OF SLAVES<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who are subject to the law applicable to immovables, where the law of robbery does not apply. ');">⁸</span>

אמר ליה מר קשישא בריה דרב חסדא לרב אשי הכי קאמרי משמיה דרבי יוחנן אפילו גנב טלה ונעשה איל עגל ונעשה שור נעשה שינוי בידו וקנאו טבח ומכר שלו הוא טובח שלו הוא מוכר אמר ליה לאו אמינא לך לא תחליף גברי ההוא משמיה דרבי אלעא איתמר:

HE MIGHT SAY TO THE OWNER: HERE, TAKE YOUR OWN. IF HE MISAPPROPRIATED A COIN AND IT BECAME CRACKED, FRUITS AND THEY BECAME STALE OR WINE AND IT BECAME SOUR, HE WOULD HAVE TO PAY ACCORDING TO [THE VALUE AT] THE TIME OF THE ROBBERY.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the change transferred the ownership to him. ');">⁷</span>

רבי מאיר אומר בעבדים אומר לו הרי שלך לפניך: אמר רב חנינא בר אבדימי אמר רב הלכה כרבי מאיר ורב שביק רבנן ועביד כרבי מאיר אמרי משום דברייתא איפכא תניא ורב שביק מתניתין ועביד כברייתא רב מתניתין נמי איפכא תני

BUT IF THE COIN WENT OUT OF USE, THE <i>TERUMAH</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">⁹</span>

ומאי טעמיה דרב דאפיך מתני' מקמי דברייתא אדרבה ניפוך לברייתא מקמי מתניתין אמרי רב נמי מתניתין איפכא אתניה

BECAME DEFILED,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And thus unfit as food; cf. Shab. 25a. ');">¹⁰</span>

ואי בעית אימא כי לא אפיך חדא מקמי חדא חדא מקמי תרתי אפיך

THE LEAVEN FORBIDDEN [FOR ANY USE BECAUSE] PASSOVER HAD INTERVENED,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Pes. II. 2. ');">¹¹</span>

דתניא המחליף פרה בחמור וילדה וכן המוכר שפחתו וילדה זה אומר ברשותי ילדה והלה שותק זכה בה זה אומר איני יודע וזה אומר איני יודע יחלוקו

OR IF THE ANIMAL [HE MISAPPROPRIATED] BECAME THE INSTRUMENT FOR THE COMMISSION OF A SIN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as in Lev. XVIII, 23; cf. also supra p. 229. ');">¹²</span>

זה אומר ברשותי וזה אומר ברשותי ישבע המוכר שברשותו ילדה לפי שכל הנשבעין שבתורה נשבעין ולא משלמין דברי ר' מאיר

OR IT BECAME OTHERWISE DISQUALIFIED FROM BEING SACRIFICED UPON THE ALTAR,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as through a blemish, hardly noticeable, as where no limb was missing; cf. Zeb. 35b and 85b; v. also Git. 56a. ');">¹³</span>

וחכמים אומרים אין נשבעין לא על העבדים ולא על הקרקעות

OR IF IT WAS TAKEN OUT TO BE STONED,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in the case of Ex. XXI. 28. ');">¹⁴</span>

האי הלכה כר' מאיר הלכה כרבנן מיבעי ליה הכי קאמר למאי דאפכיתו ותניתו הלכה כרבי מאיר

HE CAN SAY TO HIM: 'HERE, TAKE YOUR OWN.' <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. R. Papa said: The expression IT BECAME OLD does not necessarily mean that it actually became old, for [the same law would apply] even where it had otherwise deteriorated. But do we not expressly learn. IT BECAME OLD?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which a temporary deterioration could hardly be included. ');">¹⁵</span> — This indicates that the deterioration has to be equivalent to its becoming old, i.e., where it will no more recover health. Mar Kashisha, the son of R. Hisda, said to R. Ashi: It has been expressly stated in the name of R. Johanan that even where a thief misappropriated a lamb which became a ram, or a calf which became an ox,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Although there is an inevitable and natural change.] ');">¹⁶</span> since the animal underwent a change while in his hands he would acquire title to it, so that if he subsequently slaughtered or sold it, it was his which he slaughtered and it was his which he sold.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [And he would be exempt from the threefold and fourfold restitution.] ');">¹⁷</span> He said to him: Did I not say to you that you should not transpose the names of scholars?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'people'. ');">¹⁸</span> That statement was made in the name of R. Elai.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not in that of R. Johanan: supra p. 379. ');">¹⁹</span> R. MEIR, HOWEVER. SAYS THAT IN THE CASE OF SLAVES HE MIGHT SAY TO THE OWNER, 'HERE TAKE YOUR OWN.' R. Hanina b. Abdimi said that Rab stated that the <i>halachah</i> is in accordance with R. Meir. But how could Rab abandon the view of the Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The representatives of the anonymous view of the majority cited first in the Mishnah. ');">²⁰</span> and act in accordance with R. Meir? — It may, however, be said that he did so because in the text of the [relevant] Baraitha the names were transposed. But again how could Rab abandon the text of the Mishnah and act in accordance with the Baraitha?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with the anonymous view of the majority cited in the Baraitha. ');">²¹</span> — Rab, even in the text of our Mishnah, had transposed the names. But still what was the reason of Rab for transposing the names in the text of the Mishnah because of that of the Baraitha? Why not, on the contrary, transpose the names in the text of the Baraitha because of that of our Mishnah? — It may be answered that Rab, in the text of our Mishnah too, was taught by his masters to have the names transposed. Or if you like I may say that [the text of a Mishnah] is not changed [in order to be harmonised with that of a Baraitha] only in the case where there is one against one, but where there is one against two,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., where two Baraithas are against the text of one Mishnah. ');">²²</span> it must be changed [as is indeed the case here]; for it was taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.M. 100a, q.v. for notes. ');">²³</span> If one bartered a cow for an ass and [the cow] gave birth to a calf [approximately at the very time of the barter], so also if one sold his handmaid and she gave birth to a child [approximately at the time of the sale], and one says that the birth took place while [the cow or handmaid was] in his possession and the other one is silent [on the matter], the former will obtain [the calf or child as the case may be], but if one said 'I don't know', and the other said 'I don't know', they would have to share it. If, however, one says [that the birth took place] when he was owner and the other says [that it took place] when he was owner, the vendor would have to swear that the birth took place when he was owner [and thus retain it], for all those who have to take an oath according to the law of the Torah, by taking the oath release themselves from payment;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shebu. VII, 1. ');">²⁴</span> this is the view of R. Meir. But the Sages say that an oath can be imposed neither in the case of slaves nor of real property.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Shebu. VI, 5. It is thus evident that it was the majority of the Rabbis and not R. Meir who considered slaves to be subject to the law of real property. ');">²⁵</span> Now [since the text of our Mishnah should have been reversed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case it was the Rabbis who maintained that slaves are subject to the law of real property. ');">²⁶</span> why did Rab<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Meaning that slaves are on the same footing as real property. ');">²⁷</span> state that] the <i>halachah</i> is in accordance with R. Meir? Should he not have said that the <i>halachah</i> is in accordance with the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Meaning that slaves are on the same footing as real property. ');">²⁷</span> — What he said was this: According to the text you taught with the names transposed, the <i>halachah</i> is in accordance with R. Meir.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Meaning that slaves are on the same footing as real property. ');">²⁷</span>