Bava Kamma 97a — the Talmud in English

But the Gemara still raises a difficulty:

And did Rav say: “A slave is considered like real estate”?

But didn’t Rav Daniel bar Rav Ketina say in the name of Rav: “One who takes hold of another’s slave,

whom he robbed,

and performs labor with him is exempt

from paying his owner the wages for his labor, as is the law with a robber who uses the object he robbed, who is not required to pay for using it? For all the robber’s obligations are only to return the object or pay its value [if it was lost through circumstances beyond his control, or if he acquired it through a change], but he is not liable for use of the stolen object.

And if it enters your mind

that Rav holds

that a slave is considered like real estate,

and there are no laws of robbery applicable to a slave, just as there are none applicable to real estate,

why is

the robber exempt from paying the owner wages for using the slave? After all, even when he robbed him, the slave still

remains in his master’s possession!

And we answer:

Here, with what are we dealing?

With a case where he worked him

outside the time of his regular labor,

when he would not normally be working, or when his owner had no work with which to employ him; and the exemption is based on the principle: “One benefits and the other suffers no loss.”

As in that incident in which Rabbi Abba sent to Mari bar Mar: “Ask Rav Huna,

whether a person

who resides in another’s courtyard,

which is not available for rent,

without his knowledge, must pay him rent, or need he not pay him rent?”

And they sent him the reply: “He need not pay him rent!”

Because when one benefits and the other suffers no loss, he is exempt; and the same applies to one who uses a slave when his master has no need to employ him.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

Is that so!?

What is the comparison!?

Granted, there,

in the case of one who resides in another’s house without his knowledge, this is beneficial to the owner, and therefore the resident is exempt from paying him, in accordance with the explanations of the benefit stated above,

whether according to the one who says

that the benefit is because

“A house that is inhabited is settled,”

as a house inhabited by residents is preferable to an empty house, since over time its residents repair whatever requires repair; thus

it is beneficial to him,

and

whether according to the one who says: “Desolation strikes the gates,”

meaning that a house in which no one lives is damaged, and its gates are struck by the demons called sha’iyah,

it is beneficial to him.

But here,

in the case of one who performs labor with another’s slave,

is it beneficial

to the master

that his slave should become weakened

by performing labor for another person without payment!?

They said

in explanation:

Here too, it is beneficial to him

for the slave’s owner,

that he employ the slave,

so that his slave will not become spoiled,

so that he will not become accustomed to idleness.

In the house of Rav Yosef bar Ḥama, they would seize people’s slaves when those people owed him money,

meaning, he would take possession of the slaves of people who were indebted to him,

and would work them,

forcing them to perform

labor

for him.

His son Rabba said to him,

his son:

Why does my master do this?

He said to him: “For Rav Naḥman said: ‘A slave is not worth even the bread he consumes.’”

That is, the slave’s labor is not worth the food provided for him. Therefore, when I seize the slave and feed him, his master suffers no loss, since I feed him in his place, and the food I give him is worth more than the labor I receive from him.

He said to him: “I can say that Rav Naḥman said

that the slave’s labor is not worth the sustenance provided to him

in a case such as Daru, his slave,

Rav Naḥman’s slave,

who would dance in wine shops,

as he was a clown who would dance in shops in order to drink wine. But

as for all other slaves, one should work my slave.”

He said to him: “I hold in accordance with Rav Daniel.”

For Rav Daniel bar Rav Ketina said in the name of Rav: ‘One who takes hold of another’s slave and performs labor with him is exempt.’

Apparently, it is beneficial

to a person

that his slave will not become spoiled.

Rabba said to him,

his son,

This applies

when it is permitted to do so,

where the slave’s owner does not owe him money.

That is the case when the slave’s owner has no monetary obligation to the one who seized him. But

as for my master, since they owe him money,

as the owners owe you money,

it appears

that the use you make of them

«»

taking

interest!

And this is similar to

what Rav Yosef bar Minyumi said in the name of Rav Naḥman: “Even though they said that one who resides in another’s courtyard without his knowledge need not pay him rent,

nevertheless, if

he lent him money and then resided in his courtyard, he must pay him rent,

so that the matter will not appear to be interest.”

He said to him:

Indeed,

I retract!

I retract my practice.

It was stated: “One who takes hold of another’s boat and performs labor with it,

and also damages it.”

Rav said: If

the boat’s owner wishes to take from the one who seized it

its rental fee, he takes it.

And if

he wishes

to take from him the payment for

its depreciation

[when the damages were worth more than the wages for the labor]

, he takes it.

But he may not take both, as will be explained.

And Shmuel said: He takes only its depreciation.

Rav Pappa said: They do not disagree!

This

is referring to a boat that is available for rent. In such a case, it is reasonable that the one who took possession of the boat entered it with the status of a renter and did not intend to rob it. Therefore, the owner may claim its rental fee from him, even if the rental fee was greater than the depreciation, and the one who seized it may not claim that he is a robber and need pay only the lesser amount of the depreciation. However, if the depreciation was greater than the rental fee, the owner may claim the depreciation, since the boat was taken from him against his will, and with regard to the owner, the one who seized it is considered a robber liable for losses resulting from circumstances beyond his control.

This

is referring to a boat that is not available for rent. According to everyone, he is a robber; therefore, even if the rental fee was greater than the depreciation, he pays only the depreciation, as is the law with all robbers, who pay according to the value at the time of the robbery and do not pay rent.

And if you wish, say instead: Both

cases involve a boat that is available for rent.

This

is referring to a case where he took possession of it with the intention of renting it. If he took possession of it with the intention of renting it, his status is that of a renter and he is liable to pay rent. However, since he did so without permission, the owners may claim payment for the depreciation if the depreciation exceeded the rental fee.

And this

is referring to a case where he took possession of it with the intention of robbery, in which case, according to everyone, his status is that of a robber, who pays not rent but only the depreciation.

We learned in the Mishna:

“He robbed a coin and it cracked”

[and so on]:

Rav Huna said: “‘It cracked’ means that it actually cracked.

Since a significant change occurred to it, he can no longer say to him: Here is yours before you.

‘It was disqualified’ means that the government disqualified it.

Since the body of the coin remains intact, he can say to him: Here is yours before you.

And Rav Yehuda said: Even if the government disqualified it,

once the government has completely prohibited its use as currency,

that is

like

‘it cracked,’

and he can no longer say to him: Here is yours before you; rather, he pays him according to its value at the time of the robbery.

Rather, what are the circumstances of ‘it was disqualified’? It is where it was disqualified

only by the residents of

this country

from their use,

but

it

is accepted

as currency

in another country.

For the robber can say to the robbed party: You can now use this coin in another country.”

Rav Ḥisda said to Rav Huna: According to you, who say that “‘it was disqualified’

means

that the government disqualified it,”

and even though the coin was completely disqualified, he can nevertheless say to him: Here is yours before you, this is difficult:

What about produce that rotted and wine that turned sour, which are comparable to a coin disqualified by the government,

since they too still exist,

and yet it teaches: ‘He pays according to its value at the time of the robbery’!?

He said to him: “There, its taste and smell changed. Here, they did not change.”

Rava said to Rav Yehuda: According to you, who say that even when the government disqualified it, that is equivalent to ‘it cracked,’ what about teruma that became impure, which is comparable to a coin disqualified by the government, and it teaches: ‘He says to him: Here is yours before you’!?

He said to him: “There,

with teruma,

its damage is not recognizable.

For the impurity of the teruma is not apparent. But

here,

in the case of a coin that was disqualified,

its damage is recognizable,

since the form of the new coin has changed from the form of the old coin that was disqualified.”

It was stated: “One who lends money to another against a coin,

that is, he lent him merchandise and stipulated that he return money in its place [meaning that the loan was merchandise, and they agreed that repayment of the loan would be made in coins according to the value of the merchandise, rather than arranging the transaction as a sale],

and the coin was disqualified

that had been in circulation at the time of the loan: