Bava Kamma 93b — the Talmud in English

Our Mishna comes to teach that if the robbed object changed in the robber’s possession, even though the owners have still not despaired of it, the robber acquires it through the change, and pays its value as at the time of the robbery.

a.

One who robs wood and makes them vessels

and thereby changes them from their original form, which they had at the time of the robbery, or one who robs tufts of

wool and makes them garments.

He

pays

the owners money for the robbed object

as at the time of the robbery,

according to the value of the robbed object at the time he robbed it. And he does not return the robbed object, since the robber acquired it for himself through a “change in action” that he made in the object.

And in the Gemara it will be explained what change in an object is considered a change through which the robber acquires the robbed object.

b. If

he robbed a pregnant cow and it gave birth

in his possession, or he robbed

a laden ewe,

a sheep laden with wool,

and sheared it

the robber—

he pays

the robber to the owners

the value of a cow standing to give birth, and the value of a ewe standing to be shorn,

that is: the robber returns to the owners the cow or the ewe themselves, since giving birth and shearing are not a change in the body of the cow and the ewe, whereas the offspring or the wool he acquires through the change, and he adds to the robbed party their value as it was before the birth and the shearing; and the increase, which is now worth more, belongs to him.

c.

He robbed a cow, and it became pregnant in his possession and gave birth,

or he robbed

a ewe, and it became laden in his possession

with wool

and he sheared it,

what it became pregnant with, or the wool that grew on it, is considered a change even with regard to the cow or the ewe, and he is not obligated to return them, but only to pay their value.

And therefore he

pays as at the time of the robbery,

that is, the value of the cow and the value of the ewe according to their worth at the time of the robbery, and all that they increased in value from the time of the robbery onward belongs to the robber.

This is the general rule:

All robbers pay as at the time of the robbery,

and therefore if he stole a lamb and it became a ram, or he stole a calf and it became an ox and slaughtered it or sold it, he is exempt from the payments of four and five, because since it underwent a change in his possession, he acquired it, and he is slaughtering or selling his own property.

Gemara:

They said,

they said in the beit-midrash, to infer from the words of the Mishna: only if he robbed

wood and made them vessels,

not

is it considered a change, but if he

planed them [ [A0051]]shaved and smoothed the wood]—

[smoothed and polished the wood]—

not

is it considered a change.

And similarly, one who robs

wool and makes it garments, not

only this manner is considered a change, but if he

bleached it—

not

is it considered a change.

For before he makes vessels from the wood, he must plane it, and similarly before he makes garments from the wool, he must bleach it. And if this is considered a change, the robber had already acquired them from the time of planing and bleaching; so why did the Mishna need to say that he made vessels from the wood and garments from the wool? Rather, necessarily the Mishna holds that planing and bleaching are not considered a change in action that acquires the robbed object for the robber, and therefore it needed to bring the change of vessels and garments.

And we raise a contradiction

from what we learned in a beraita

if he robbed wood and planed it,

or he robbed

stones and hewed them,

or

wool and bleached it,

or

flax and cleaned it—

he pays

money

as at the time of the robbery,

and he does not return the object! It is explained in the beraita that even planing and bleaching are considered a change in action through which the robber acquires the object.

Abaye said: The tanna of our Mishna teaches

the tanna in our Mishna brought a case of

a change

in action

of rabbinic status,

a change that is effective only by rabbinic law, namely, a change

that can return,

for it is possible to undo the change and return the object to its former state as it was at the time of the robbery,

and all the more so

if he made

a change of Torah status,

a change that is effective for acquiring even by Torah law, namely, a change that cannot be undone and the object cannot be returned to its former state, such as planing and bleaching.

And thus one should explain the words of the Mishna: he robbed

wood and made them vessels—

it is speaking of

wood

that was already

planed

at the time of the robbery.

And what are they?

And what are those planed pieces of wood called?

Boards!

And since the wood was planed,

for the change that can return to its original state is

what the robber joined together and made into vessels,

for if he wishes, he can remove them

for if he wishes, he can dismantle the joints and return them to their former state as they were at the time of the robbery.

And for this reason the Mishna stated the change in which he made vessels from the boards, such as chests and chairs, in order to teach that even a slight change that can be undone—for he can dismantle the boards as they were at the time of the robbery—and nevertheless the robber acquires through this change; and all the more so if he shaved the wood, which is considered a complete change, and the robber acquires the object by Torah law.

And likewise one should explain: with one who robs

wool and makes it garments—

for it is speaking of

wool

that had already been

spun

at the time of the robbery.

And since the wool had been spun,

for the change that can return to its original state is

what the robber knitted from it into garments,

for if he wishes, he can unravel it,

for if he wishes, he can unravel the garment and return the wool to its former state as it was at the time of the robbery.

And all the more so

if the robber made

a change of Torah status,

a change effective for acquiring even by Torah law, namely, one that cannot be undone, such as if he shaved the wood or bleached the wool; certainly it is considered a change, and he acquires the robbed object for himself.

And the outside tanna

in the beraita only

a change

in action

of Torah status teaches, and a change

in action that is effective for acquiring only

by rabbinic law it does not teach.

Rav Ashi said

to resolve the contradiction between the Mishna and the beraita in another manner:

The tanna of our Mishna also teaches a change of Torah status,

the tanna in our Mishna likewise speaks of a case in which the robber made a change effective for acquiring by Torah law [namely, a change that cannot be undone]; but if the robber made a change that can be undone, he does not acquire.

And what is difficult regarding the Mishna is that if only a change that cannot be undone acquires, necessarily it is speaking of wood that is not planed and wool that is not bleached. If so, why did the Mishna write that he made vessels from the wood and garments from the wool? The change that the robber makes by planing the wood and bleaching the wool is sufficient to acquire the object.

Thus one should explain the Mishna: one who robs

wood and makes them vessels—

the intent is that he made from the wood a vessel called

buchani [

a surface for pounding], which has no carving in it, but only planing,

that is, he planed them,

as brought in the beraita, which is a change that cannot be undone and is effective by Torah law.

And likewise, what is stated in the Mishna:

wool and makes it garments—

the intent is that he made from the wool garments called

namti [

felt coverings], and in these garments they do not bleach the wool.

And the Mishna’s novelty is that if the robber made these garments from the wool without bleaching it, he acquired them, since

that is, it is a change that does not return,

for the wool can no longer return to its former state, with each and every fiber being separate by itself.

And we ask:

and bleaching

the wool

is it

indeed considered

a change?

And we raise a contradiction

from a Mishna in Chullin [135a], where we learned: concerning a person who sheared his flock and became obligated in the first shearing,

he did not have enough time

the owner of the shearing

to give it to him

to the koen, the first shearing,

until he dyed it

all the wool—

he is exempt

from giving it further , since he dyed it and intended to rob it , the owner of the shearing acquired it through the change, and he is like one who damages priestly gifts or like one who consumed them, who is exempt even from returning their monetary value, because it is property with no claimant.

And if

he bleached it

the owner of the shearing, who bleached the wool before giving the first shearing to the koen,

but did not dye it—

he is obligated

to give it to the koen, for bleaching is not a change and does not remove it from the status of “the first shearing.”

And this is difficult from what is explained here, that bleaching is considered a change.

Abaye said: It is not difficult:

This

the tanna who holds that bleaching is considered a change holds according to the opinion of

Rabbi Shimon; this

the tanna who holds that bleaching is not considered a change holds according to the opinion of

the Rabbis.

In tractate Chullin it is explained that only if he has five ewes to shear, and in each one there is wool in the amount of one and a half manehs , then he is obligated in the first shearing.

And what is the mitzva of the first shearing? After he has shorn a ewe, he gives from the shearing to the koen as much as he wishes, provided that the giving is significant.

For it was taught

in a beraita:

if he sheared them,

if he sheared one ewe and, before he sheared the others,

spun and wove it,

and likewise did with the second and third ewes—

it does not combine

all the wool to become obligated in “the first shearing,” since the owner of the shearing had already acquired that wool which he spun and wove through the change.

But if they only

bleached

the wool of the first before he sheared the others, in this there is a dispute:

Rabbi Shimon says: It does not combine

that wool with the wool that has not yet been shorn, to become obligated in the first shearing, since he holds that bleaching is considered a change.

And the Rabbis say: It combines,

since they hold that bleaching is not considered a change.

And concerning this dispute the Mishna in Chullin and the beraita here dispute whether bleaching is considered a change.

Rava said

to resolve the contradiction in another manner:

both this and that

both the Mishna in Chullin and the beraita here follow the opinion of

Rabbi Shimon,

who holds that bleaching is considered a change.

And it is not difficult: this

the Mishna in Chullin speaks of bleaching

that he separated the fibers [

by hand before the bleaching, and the bleaching is not considered a sufficient change.

Here

in our case it speaks of bleaching

that he combed it

that he combed the fibers with a comb before the bleaching, for in this manner it is considered a complete change [according to Rabbi Shimon].

Rabbi Hiyya bar Avin said:

another resolution:

here

the Mishna in Chullin speaks of bleaching

that he whitened it

that he merely whitened it without sulfur, which is not considered a sufficient change.

Here

in our case it speaks of bleaching

that he blackened it

with sulfur so that it would whiten well, for in this manner it is considered a complete change [according to Rabbi Shimon].

And we raise a difficulty: How does Rabbi Shimon hold that bleaching is considered a change, when

now one can say

that

dyeing

which is a greater change than bleaching,

according to Rabbi Shimon is not a change,

as is proven from the baraita below; if so, how according to him

is bleaching a change?

And the proof that according to Rabbi Shimon dyeing is not considered a sufficient change is

as it was taught

in a baraita:

If he sheared each first portion and dyed it

each shearing separately, before he sheared the next shearing, or he sheared

each first portion and spun it,

or he sheared

each first portion and wove it,

it is considered a change, and through the change he acquired it for himself. Therefore, the shearing in which he made a change

does not combine

with the wool that he will shear afterward toward the measure that obligates in the first shearing.

Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon:

if he

dyed

the shearing of the wool, it is not considered a change in the wool, and therefore it

combines

with the wool that he will shear afterward toward the measure that obligates in the first shearing.

It is proven from the baraita that according to Rabbi Shimon dyeing is not considered a sufficient change; if so, how according to him is bleaching considered an acquisitive change of action?

Abaye said: It is not difficult:

This

the baraita that cites Rabbi Shimon, who holds that bleaching the wool is considered a change, and certainly its dyeing, is the view of

the Rabbis according to Rabbi Shimon.

Whereas

this

the baraita that cites Rabbi Shimon, who holds that a change of dyeing does not acquire, and certainly the lesser change of bleaching does not acquire, is

Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda according to Rabbi Shimon.

Rava said:

another resolution:

In fact, the Rabbis do not disagree with Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda

and all hold that according to Rabbi Shimon dyeing is not considered a change; and this is not a contradiction to bleaching being considered a change, because

and dyeing is different

it differs

dyeing

from bleaching,

since he can remove it

the dye

by means of tzafon [

soap] and return the wool to its original state, whereas bleaching is a change that cannot be undone and the wool cannot be returned to its original state.

And when it teaches there

and what we learned there in the Mishna in Chullin, that if

the owner of the shearing did not manage

the owner of the shearing

to give it to him

the first shearing to the kohen

until he dyed

all the wool —

he is exempt

from giving it further, since the owner of the shearing acquired it through the change.

And we established

and established this Mishna

according to everyone.

It does not speak there of ordinary dye, but rather of dye

with kela ilan

whose color resembles tekhelet, and it is a dye

that does not come off

which cannot be removed, and therefore everyone agrees that it is considered a change.

Abaye said:

Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, and Beit Shammai, and Rabbi

Eliezer ben Yaakov, and Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, and Rabbi Yishmael—all hold

all of these hold that

a change remains in its place

and the change in the object does not suffice to remove it from the possession of its previous owners.

And where do we find that all these tannaim hold so?

Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda

we find that he holds so, concerning

that which we said

above, that according to Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda dyeing does not suffice to remove the wool from the obligation of the first shearing, and Abaye explained his words as meaning that he holds that a change does not acquire; therefore he holds that even a change through dyeing, which is more substantial than bleaching, does not acquire.

What is the case of Beit Shammai?

Where do we find that he holds that a change does not acquire?

Prostitution payment: that is, payment that she receives for intercourse; it is unfit for the altar. As it is stated [Deuteronomy 23:19], "You shall not bring the payment of a prostitute or the price of a dog to the House of the Lord your God for any vow, for both of them are an abomination of the Lord your God."

As it was taught

in a baraita:

If he gave her

the prostitute

wheat as her payment

in exchange for payment for intercourse,

and he made them fine flour,

or he gave her as her payment

olives —

and he made them oil,

or

grapes —

and he made them wine.

One [teaching] teaches: It is forbidden

still to offer them on the altar, and they do not become permitted through the change that was made in them.

And another [teaching] teaches: It is permitted

to offer them, since they have already changed from what they were at the time they were given as payment, and they are no longer considered payment.