Bava Kamma 60

תבנו וקשו תנן משום דמשרקי:

The Mishnah states, HIS STRAW AND STUBBLE which are slippery [and may never be removed into public ground even according to R. Judah].

כל הקודם בהן זכה: אמר רב בין בגופן בין בשבחן וזעירי אמר בשבחן אבל לא בגופן

WHOEVER SEIZES THEM FIRST ACQUIRES TITLE TO THEM. Rab said: Both to their corpus and to their increase [in value],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' While on public ground. ');">¹</span>

במאי קמיפלגי רב סבר קנסו גופן משום שבחן וזעירי סבר לא קנסו גופן משום שבחן

whereas Ze'ire said: Only to their increase but not to their corpus.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which thus still remains the property of the original owner. ');">²</span>

תנן ההופך את הגלל ברה"ר והוזק בהן אחר חייב בנזקו ואילו כל הקודם זכה לא קתני

Wherein is the point at issue?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., what is the principle underlying it? ');">³</span>

תנא לרישא וה"ה לסיפא

— Rab maintains that they [the Rabbis] extended the penalty to the corpus on account of the increase thereof, but Ze'ire is of the opinion that they did not extend the penalty to the corpus on account of the increase thereof.

והא תני עלה אסורין משום גזל

We have learnt: IF HE TURNS UP DUNG THAT HAD BEEN LYING ON PUBLIC GROUND AND DAMAGE [SUBSEQUENTLY] RESULTS TO ANOTHER PERSON, HE IS LIABLE FOR THE DAMAGE. Now, [in this case] it is not stated that 'Whoever seizes it first acquires title to it.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This clause, if omitted purposely, would thus tend to prove that the penalty attaches only to straw and stubble and their like, which improve while lying on public ground, but not to dung placed on public ground, apparently on account of the fact that in this case there is neither increase in quantity nor improvement in quality while lying on public ground. This distinction appears therefore to be not in accordance with the view of Rab, maintaining that the penalty extend not only to the increase but also to the corpus of the object of the nuisance. ');">⁴</span>

כי קתני אסורין משום גזל אכולה מתני' קאי לאותו שקדם וזכה

— [This ruling has been] inserted in the commencing clause, and applies as well to the concluding clause. But has it not in this connection<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. in connection with the latter clause. ');">⁵</span>

והא לא קתני הכי דתנן המוציא תבנו וקשו לרה"ר לזבלים והוזק בהן אחר חייב בנזקו וכל הקודם בהן זכה ומותר משום גזל וההופך את הגלל לרה"ר והוזק בהן אחר חייב ואסור משום גזל

been taught [in a Baraitha]: They are prohibited [to be taken possession of] on account of [the law of] robbery?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which shows that the penalty does not extend to the corpus. ');">⁶</span>

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק גלל קרמית דבר שיש בו שבח קנסו גופו משום שבחו דבר שאין בו שבח לא קנסו

— When [the Baraitha] states 'They are prohibited on account of robbery' the reference is to all the cases [presented] in the Mishnaic text<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even to straw and stubble. ');">⁷</span>

איבעיא להו לדברי האומר קנסו גופן משום שבחן לאלתר קנסינן או לכי מייתי שבחא קנסינן

and [is intended] to [protect] the one who had seized [of them] first, having thereby acquired title [to them]. But surely it was not meant thus, seeing that it was taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [V. D.S. a.l.] ');">⁸</span>

ת"ש מדקאיירינן גלל

'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, as this may be done irrespective of [the law of] robbery. [However] where he turns up dung on public ground and damage [subsequently] results to another person, he is liable [to compensate] but no possession may be taken of the dung on account of [the law of] robbery'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which shows that the penalty does not extend to the corpus. ');">⁶</span>

ותסברא כי איירינן גלל מיקמי דלשני רב נחמן לבתר דשני רב נחמן מי איכא למירמא גלל כלל

— R. Nahman b. Isaac [thereupon] exclaimed: What an objection to adduce from the case of dung! [It is only in the case of] an object that is susceptible to increase [in value] that the penalty is extended to the corpus<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to the view of Rab. ');">⁹</span>

לימא כתנאי שטר שכתוב בו רבית קונסין אותו ואינו גובה לא את הקרן ולא את הרבית דברי ר"מ וחכמים אומרים גובה את הקרן אבל לא את הרבית לימא רב דאמר כרבי מאיר וזעירי דאמר כרבנן

for the purpose of [discouraging any idea of] gain, whereas with regard to an object that yields no increase there is no penalty [at all].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For, since there is no gain, nobody is likely to be tempted to place dung on public ground. ');">¹⁰</span>

אמר לך רב אנא דאמרי אפי' לרבנן עד כאן לא קאמרי רבנן התם אלא קרן דבהתירא אבל הכא קרן גופא קמזיק

The question was asked: According to the view that the penalty extends also to the corpus for the purpose of [discouraging the idea of] gain,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to the view of Rab. ');">⁹</span>

וזעירי אמר לך אנא דאמרי אפי' לר"מ עד כאן לא קאמר ר"מ התם אלא דמשעת כתיבה דעבד ליה שומא אבל הכא מי יימר דמזיק

is this penalty imposed at once<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even before any gain accrued. ');">¹¹</span>

לימא כהני תנאי המוציא תבנו וקשו לרה"ר לזבלים והוזק בהן אחר חייב בנזקו וכל הקודם בהן זכה ואסורין משום גזל ר"ש בן גמליאל אומר כל המקלקלין ברה"ר והזיקו חייבין לשלם וכל הקודם בהן זכה ומותרין משום גזל

or is it only after some gain has been produced that the penalty will be imposed? — Come and hear: An objection was raised [against Rab] from the case of dung!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although no increase will ever accrue there, thus proving that according to Rab the penalty is imposed on the corpus even before it had yielded any gain. ');">¹²</span>

הא גופא קשיא אמרת כל הקודם בהן זכה והדר קאמר אסורין משום גזל אלא לאו הכי קאמר וכל הקודם בהן זכה בשבחן ואסורין משום גזל אגופן ואתא רבן שמעון בן גמליאל למימר אפי' גופן נמי כל הקודם בהן זכה

But do you really think this [solves the problem]? The objection from the case of dung was raised only before R. Nahman expounded the underlying principle;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That there is no penalty at all with regard to an object that yields no increase; whereas the query is based on the principle laid down by R. Nahman. ');">¹³</span>

לזעירי ודאי תנאי היא לרב מי לימא תנאי היא

for after the explanation given by R. Nahman what objection indeed could there be raised from the case of dung?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where no increase will ever accrue. ');">¹⁴</span>

אמר לך רב דכולי עלמא קנסו גופן משום שבחן והכא בהלכה ואין מורין כן קא מיפלגי דאתמר רב הונא אמר רב הלכה ואין מורין כן רב אדא בר אהבה אמר הלכה ומורין כן

Might not one suggest [the argument between Rab and Ze'ire to have been] the point at issue between [the following] Tannaim? For it was taught: If a bill contains a stipulation of interest,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is against the biblical prohibition of Ex. XXII, 24. ');">¹⁵</span>

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