Bava Kamma 95b — the Talmud in English

For example, where he robbed a field from another and sold it to another, and it appreciated

the purchaser,

and it emerges from his possession

the purchaser, through the robbed owner, who takes the land after proving in court that it is his,

when he

the purchaser

collects

from the robber payment for the field that he sold to him with a guarantee—

he collects the principal

that is, whatever he paid for the field, he collects even

from liened property

that was in the seller’s possession at the time of the sale, since the seller wrote for him in the deed of sale that he liens his property to pay him from it if they take from him the land that he sells him.

And the appreciation

that the purchaser caused in the field, he collects from the seller only

from free property,

because the appreciation is not a fixed amount.

And the reason that he must collect the appreciation from the seller is because

the owner of the land came

who came, the owner of the land [the robbed owner

and took his land and its appreciation

and took the land together with the appreciation that he caused in it and with the produce.

Is it not

referring

to

a purchaser

who is an ignoramus, who did not know whether land can be robbed or cannot be robbed,

and if so, he acted unknowingly when he bought from the robber, for he thought that robbery applies to land; and since this is after despair, the robber acquired it,

and even so

although the purchaser acted unknowingly, nevertheless

comes

comes

the owner of the land and takes the land and its appreciation

and takes the land together with the appreciation, and the purchaser does not receive from the robbed owner even the expenses that he had for the appreciation.

And infer from it:

that Rabbi Meir holds that even if the robbery was in his possession

unknowingly also, he fines,

and obligates him to return the appreciation also to the robbed owner.

They said

to reject this:

No,

it is possible to establish the beraita

with a purchaser who is a Torah scholar and knew

that the robber had no ownership right in this land; and in this manner he is subject to a fine to return the appreciation also to the owners.

And one cannot prove from this beraita whether, according to Rabbi Meir, they fine even a person who unknowingly held a robbery and caused it to appreciate, so that he must return the appreciation as well.

Come and hear

to resolve the uncertainty from the Mishna below [100b], where we learned: If one gave wool to a dyer

to dye it for him

the wool with dye

red and he dyed it

with dye

black,

or he gave it to him to dye it with dye

black and he dyed it

with dye

red,

that is, he changed from what the owner of the wool stipulated with him.

Rabbi Meir says: He gives him

the dyer

the value of his wool.

And it is precise in Rabbi Meir’s words that only

the value of his wool, not

he must pay, but

the value of his wool and its appreciation

the appreciation, the added value that came through the dyeing,

not

he must pay.

And if it should enter your mind

that Rabbi Meir

also fines in an unknowing case,

then according to him

he must give him the value of his wool and its appreciation

he must give it, for the fine was regarding the appreciation, which they give to the owner of the object.

Rather, infer from it

from the fact that Rabbi Meir did not obligate the dyer to give the appreciation: that only when he caused appreciation in an object that was not his

deliberately,

then

he fines

him to give the appreciation, but when he caused appreciation in an object that was not his

unknowingly, he does not fine.

And we conclude: Indeed,

infer from it

that this is Rabbi Meir’s view.

Thus far the Gemara explained Rabbi Meir’s position; now the Gemara will explain the positions of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon in that beraita.

We learned in that same beraita:

Rabbi Yehuda says: The robbery returns in its own form

as it is now, after the change. And he adds payment of the value of the shearing and the offspring as they were worth at the time of the robbery, but he does not pay the appreciation of the shearing and the offspring that appreciated in his possession, because they changed and now belong to him; he is liable only for payment for the robbery as it was at the time of the robbery.

Rabbi

Shimon says: We view it

the robbery

as though it were assessed

[valued]

for him in money,

that is: he pays according to its valuation at the time of the robbery.

What is the difference between them

what is the difference between the two views? For seemingly, according to both of them he need not give the robbed owner the appreciation, and it remains with him.

Rav Zevid said: They disagree concerning appreciation upon the robbery,

where the robbery appreciated in the robber’s possession and he has not yet taken the appreciation from it—for example, the cow was empty and became pregnant, or it is now laden with wool. Regarding this appreciation Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon disagree about its law.

Rabbi Yehuda holds:

that this appreciation

belongs to the robbed owner,

for Rabbi Yehuda’s words in the beraita can be explained to mean that the robbery returns in its own form to its owners whether it appreciated or depreciated: as it is at the time of the court claim, so it returns. But where it depreciated, for example, he sheared it or it gave birth, the robber pays the depreciation, because the robbed owner claims from him also the value of the shearing and the offspring that he robbed from him.

And Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with Rabbi Meir in this: Rabbi Meir said that even the appreciation that was removed from the robbery must be given to the owner of the robbery; and although the robber acquired the shearing and the offspring through change, we view the appreciation as though it were still upon the robbery, and view it as though it had not been sheared and given birth, and he pays all the appreciation by virtue of a fine.

And Rabbi Yehuda said to him that only the appreciation presently found upon the robbery returns to the robbed owner. If the robbed owner again claims the shearing and the offspring that existed at the time of the robbery, the robber must pay their value, since he acquired them through change. But if the appreciation is upon the robbery, it returns to the robbed owner.

And Rabbi Shimon holds:

that even appreciation found upon the robbery

belongs to the robber,

and the robber takes it, since change effects acquisition, and he pays only money according to the valuation of the robbery at the time of the robbery.

Rav Pappa said

to explain the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon in another manner:

Everyone

according to everyone—both according to Rabbi Yehuda and according to Rabbi Shimon—

appreciation upon the robbery belongs to the robber,

since change effects acquisition. And what Rabbi Yehuda said in the beraita, that the robbery returns in its own form, means that it returns in its own form as it was at the time of the robbery, without the appreciation.

And here,

with regard to payment to the robber for the appreciation that he caused in the robbery, to pay him

one-half, one-third, or one-quarter

of the appreciation, according to the custom of the country for those who receive animals to improve them for such a long period,

they disagree

they are divided.

Rabbi Yehuda holds: All the appreciation upon the robbery belongs to the robber.

And Rabbi Shimon holds:

only

one-half, one-third, or one-quarter

of the appreciation

is what the robber takes,

for he is considered like one who took the animal to tend to it and improve it; therefore he does not receive all the profits, but only their portion, as is customary in that place in payment for this labor.

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Pappa’s explanation of the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon from our Mishna.

We learned

[above, 93b]:

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

and likewise if he robbed

a ewe and it became laden in his possession

with wool

and he sheared it—

he pays as at the time of the robbery

without the offspring and the wool.

And it is precise from the Mishna: only if

it gave birth—

no

[yes,] he pays as at the time of the robbery; but if

it did not give birth

and it is still pregnant—

it returns in its own form

it returns in its own form, as it is.

If so,

this is understandable according to Rav Zevid, who said that appreciation upon the robbery

which the robber has not yet taken, this appreciation

belongs to the robbed owner according to Rabbi Yehuda.

If so,

whose

is this Mishna

view

whose view is it? It is the view of

Rabbi Yehuda.

But according to Rav Pappa, who said

that both according to Rabbi Yehuda and according to Rabbi Shimon, appreciation that is still upon the robbery

belongs to the robber.

It is difficult:

whose

is this Mishna

view

whose view is it? It is

not

the view of

Rabbi Yehuda, nor

the view of

Rabbi Shimon,

and certainly it is not Rabbi Meir’s view, because it is written at the beginning of the Mishna: If he robbed a pregnant cow and it gave birth, or he robbed a laden ewe and sheared it, he pays the value of a cow standing to give birth, and so on; and according to Rabbi Meir he pays the shearing and offspring according to their present value at the time of returning them.

And we answer:

Rav Pappa could say to you: The same law applies—even if it did not give birth also,

only

he pays as at the time of the robbery,

without the appreciation that it caused in the robber’s possession.

And that which it teaches

in the Mishna

“it gave birth,”

that is

since the first clause took

since it mentioned in the first clause the case where

it gave birth

in order to teach us that he does not pay the shearing and offspring according to their present value, but the value of a cow standing to give birth, therefore

it also took the latter clause

it also mentioned in the latter clause the case where

it gave birth,

but in fact, in the latter clause as well, where it merely became pregnant and did not give birth, the robber takes the appreciation for himself.

And if so, the Mishna is reconciled with Rav Pappa’s words, both according to the view of Rabbi Yehuda and according to the view of Rabbi Shimon.

It was taught

in a beraita

in accordance with his view,

in accordance with the view

of Rav Pappa:

For we learned:

Rabbi Shimon says: We view it as though it were

the robbery

assessed

[valued]

for him in money, one-half, one-third, or one-quarter.

If so, it is explicitly explained in the beraita in accordance with Rav Pappa’s words: Rabbi Shimon’s view is that the robber takes from the appreciation only one-half, one-third, or one-quarter, since he is considered like one who took the animal to tend to it and improve it; therefore he does not receive all the profits, but only their portion, as is customary in that place in payment for this labor.

Rav Ashi said: When we were in the study hall of

when we were studying in the house of

Rav Kahana, a question was asked of us

this question:

According to Rabbi Shimon, who says that the robber takes only one-half, one-third, or one-quarter,

is it

when we remove him

when we pay the robber for the appreciation—

do we remove him with money

do we pay him his share with money,

or perhaps he takes from the flesh

or perhaps he takes it from the flesh itself?

And we resolved it

and resolved the uncertainty

from that which Rav Naḥman said in the name of Shmuel: Three are assessed

[valued]

for them

the

appreciation

that they caused

and they are raised with money,

to pay them the appreciation in money.

And these are they:

1. A

firstborn

assesses

for

a

simple

son the appreciation that he caused in the inheritance and pays him the appreciation in money. For if both of them worked on a jointly owned estate that they inherited from their father, and afterward divided the inheritance between them, the firstborn, who receives a double portion, must return to the simple son half of the appreciation that he caused in the portion of the property that he inherited by virtue of the firstborn portion in excess of his brother. For example, if they caused appreciation in the inheritance worth twelve zuz, and when the firstborn brother took his inheritance double, he received in his portion appreciation worth eight zuz, it follows that he received four zuz of the appreciation in the firstborn portion, and he must give half of it to the simple brother, namely two zuz, because he does not take a double portion of the appreciation that the brothers caused, but only of the land. And when the firstborn pays the simple brother for the appreciation, he need not give him from the land; rather, if the firstborn wishes, he pays him in money.

2.

And a creditor to a purchaser,

a creditor who collects his debt from land liened to him, which the borrower sold to another person, has no right to collect his debt from what the purchaser caused the land to appreciate; rather, he pays the purchaser for what he caused the land to appreciate, in money, and need not give him from the body of the land.

3.

And a creditor to orphans,

when he collects from their father’s property for a debt that their father owed, he has no right to collect his debt from what the property appreciated after the father’s death; rather, he pays the orphans for the appreciation that the property caused, in money, and need not pay them with property.

And the same law applies to a robber who caused appreciation: the robbed owner may pay him for the appreciation in money, and need not give him from the appreciation itself.

Now the Gemara discusses Shmuel’s words:

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Did Shmuel say:

that

a creditor to a purchaser gives him

he gives him payment for

the appreciation

that he caused in the land?

But Shmuel said: A creditor collects the appreciation

and returns nothing to the purchaser!

He said to him

Rav Ashi

It is not difficult:

Here,

where Shmuel said that he does not collect the appreciation for his debt, the case is

with appreciation that reaches the shoulders,

that is, appreciation that the purchaser caused until its growth was completed, so that it is already ripe and one can come and carry the appreciation on one’s shoulders,

and here,

where Shmuel said that he does collect the appreciation, the case is

with appreciation that does not reach the shoulders

for its growth has not yet been completed, and it passes entirely into the creditor’s possession.

He said to him

Ravina:

But it is an everyday practice, and Shmuel collects

and he would collect

Shmuel

from the purchaser for the creditor

even appreciation that reaches the shoulders!

He said to him

Rav Ashi:

It is not difficult: