## Bava Kamma Daf 12a

###### Bava Kamma 12a:1
[Bava Kamma 12a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/12a:1)

לְבָתַר דִּנְפַק, אֲמַר לְהוּ עוּלָּא, הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אֲפִילּוּ מִיַּתְמֵי. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: אִשְׁתְּמִיטַן עוּלָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: **After** Rav Naḥman **exited** the study hall, **Ulla said to** the remaining Sages in the study hall: In truth, **this** is what **Rabbi Elazar said:** A slave can be collected as payment **even** when collecting **from** the debtor’s **orphans.** Generally, when collecting a debt from the debtor’s orphans the creditor can collect only from the land that they inherited from their father, which is liened to the debt. Rabbi Elazar rules that a creditor can also collect from the slaves they inherited, as he holds that in this regard, the legal status of slaves is like that of land. Ulla did not reveal this fact to Rav Naḥman, as he knew that Rav Naḥman disagreed and held that the legal status of slaves is like that of movable property. When he heard of Ulla’s revelation, **Rav Naḥman said: Ulla evaded me,** as had he told me Rabbi Elazar’s full opinion, I would have brought proofs against his opinion.


###### Bava Kamma 12a:2
[Bava Kamma 12a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/12a:2)

הֲוָה עוֹבָדָא בִּנְהַרְדְּעָא, וְאַגְבּוֹ דַּיָּינֵי דִנְהַרְדְּעָא. הֲוָה עוֹבָדָא בְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא, וְאַגְבְּיֵהּ רַב חָנָא בַּר בִּיזְנָא. אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב נַחְמָן: זִילוּ אַהֲדוּרוּ, וְאִי לָא – מַגְבִּינַן לְכוּ לְאַפַּדְנַיְיכוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: **There was an incident in Neharde’a, and the judges of Neharde’a collected,** on behalf of a creditor, slaves that orphans had inherited from the debtor. **There was an incident in Pumbedita, and Rav Ḥana bar Bizna collected** slaves from orphans as repayment for a debt. **Rav Naḥman said to** those judges: **Go and return** those slaves to the orphans, **and if** you do **not** do so, **we will collect** the value of the slaves **from** the proceeds of **your own mansions** in order to compensate the orphans for their loss, as you have made an elementary mistake in your ruling and therefore you are responsible to rectify it.


###### Bava Kamma 12a:3
[Bava Kamma 12a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/12a:3)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: הָא עוּלָּא, הָא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, הָא דַּיָּינֵי דִנְהַרְדְּעָא וְהָא רַב חָנָא בַּר בִּיזְנָא; מָר – כְּמַאן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said to Rav Naḥman: There is Ulla, there is Rabbi Elazar, there are the judges of Neharde’a, and there is Rav Ḥana bar Bizna,** all of whom ruled based on the assumption that the legal status of slaves is like that of land. **In accordance with whose** opinion **does the Master,** i.e., you, Rav Naḥman, **hold?**


###### Bava Kamma 12a:4
[Bava Kamma 12a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/12a:4)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא מַתְנִיתָא יָדַעְנָא – דְּתָנֵי אֲבִימִי: פְּרוֹזְבּוּל חָל עַל הַקַּרְקַע, וְאֵינוֹ חָל עַל הָעֲבָדִים. מִטַּלְטְלִין נִקְנִין עִם הַקַּרְקַע, וְאֵינָן נִקְנִין עִם הָעֲבָדִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Naḥman **said to him: I know a *baraita*** that supports my opinion, **as Avimi teaches: A document that prevents the Sabbatical Year from abrogating an outstanding debt [*prosbol*] takes effect upon** a debt assumed by one who owns **land, but** a *prosbol* **does not take effect upon** a debt assumed by one who owns **slaves** of the debtor. And **movable property is acquired together with the land** one acquires through the act of acquisition performed on the land, **but** movable property **cannot be acquired together with the slaves** that one acquires. Both *halakhot* assume that in these cases the legal status of slaves is not like that of land.


###### Bava Kamma 12a:5
[Bava Kamma 12a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/12a:5)

לֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Let us say** that this issue is the **subject of** a dispute between ***tanna’im*** in the following *baraitot*.


###### Bava Kamma 12a:6
[Bava Kamma 12a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/12a:6)

מָכַר לוֹ עֲבָדִים וְקַרְקָעוֹת; הֶחְזִיק בַּעֲבָדִים – לֹא קָנָה קַרְקָעוֹת, בְּקַרְקָעוֹת – לֹא קָנָה עֲבָדִים. קַרְקָעוֹת וּמִטַּלְטְלִין; הֶחְזִיק בְּקַרְקַע – קָנָה מִטַּלְטְלִין, בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין – לֹא קָנָה קַרְקַע. עֲבָדִים וּמִטַּלְטְלִין; הֶחְזִיק בַּעֲבָדִים – לֹא קָנָה מִטַּלְטְלִין, בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין – לֹא קָנָה עֲבָדִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One *baraita* teaches: If **one sold slaves and land to** a buyer and the buyer **took possession of the slaves** alone, he **does not** thereby **acquire** the **land.** If he took possession **of the land** alone, he **does not** thereby **acquire** the **slaves.** If one sold **land and movable property to** a buyer and the buyer **took possession of the land** alone, he thereby also **acquires the movable property.** If he took possession **of the movable property** alone, he **does not** thereby **acquire the land.** If one sold **slaves and movable property to** a buyer and the buyer **took possession of the slaves** alone, he **does not** thereby **acquire the movable property.** If he took possession **of the movable property** alone, he **does not** thereby **acquire the slaves.**


###### Bava Kamma 12a:7
[Bava Kamma 12a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/12a:7)

וְהָתַנְיָא: הֶחְזִיק בַּעֲבָדִים – קָנָה מִטַּלְטְלִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But isn’t it taught** in another *baraita*: If the buyer **took possession of the slaves** alone, he thereby also **acquires the movable property?** This directly contradicts the ruling in the parallel clause of the previous *baraita*.


###### Bava Kamma 12a:8
[Bava Kamma 12a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/12a:8)

מַאי, לָאו בְּהָא קָמִפַּלְגִי – דְּמָר סָבַר: עֲבָדִים כִּמְקַרְקְעֵי דָּמֵי, וּמָר סָבַר: עֲבָדִים כְּמִטַּלְטְלִין דָּמֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What, is it not** the case **that it is about this** that **they disagree, that** one **Sage,** the *tanna* of the second *baraita*, **holds** that the legal status of **slaves is like** that of **land,** and the other **Sage,** the *tanna* of the first *baraita*, **holds** that the legal status of **slaves is like** that of **movable property?**


###### Bava Kamma 12a:9
[Bava Kamma 12a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/12a:9)

אָמַר רַב אִיקָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אַמֵּי: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא – עֲבָדִים כִּמְקַרְקְעֵי דָּמֵי. וְהָדְתַנְיָא קָנָה – שַׁפִּיר; וְהָדְתַנְיָא לֹא קָנָה – בָּעֵינַן קַרְקַע דֻּומְיָא דְּ״עָרִים מְצוּרוֹת בִּיהוּדָה״ – דְּלָא נָיְידִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **Rav Ika, son of Rav Ami, said: According to everyone,** the legal status of **slaves is** generally **like** that of **land, and** therefore, **that which is taught** in the second *baraita*, that by taking possession of the slaves **he** also **acquires** the movable property, is **properly** understood. **And that which is taught** in the first *baraita*, that in such a case he **does not acquire** the movable property, the reason for this ruling is that the *tanna* of that *baraita* holds that in order for movable property to be acquired together with land, **we require** that he acquire **land similar to “fortified cities in Judea”** (II Chronicles 21:3), **which do not move around.** Slaves, even if their legal status is generally like that of land, do not fulfill this requirement.


###### Bava Kamma 12a:10
[Bava Kamma 12a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/12a:10)

דִּתְנַן: נְכָסִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם אַחְרָיוּת נִקְנִין עִם נְכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם אַחְרָיוּת – בְּכֶסֶף, בִּשְׁטָר וּבַחֲזָקָה. מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וַיִּתֵּן לָהֶם אֲבִיהֶם מַתָּנוֹת רַבּוֹת לְכֶסֶף וּלְזָהָב וּלְמִגְדָּנוֹת, עִם עָרֵי מְצֻרוֹת בִּיהוּדָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The reason behind the need for land to be like the “fortified cities in Judea” is that the *halakha* that one can acquire movable property together with land is derived from this verse, **as we learned** in a mishna (*Kiddushin* 26a): **Property that does not serve as a guarantee,** i.e., movable property, **is acquired together with property that does serve as a guarantee,** i.e., land, be it **through** the buyer giving **money** to the seller, by the seller giving the buyer **a bill** of sale, **or by** the buyer performing an act of **taking possession.** The Gemara asks: **From where is this matter** derived? **Ḥizkiyya said: As the verse states: “And their father gave them great gifts, of silver, and of gold, and of precious things, with fortified cities in Judea”** (II Chronicles 21:3). The verse indicates that the acquisition of the movable property was done together with that of the cities of Judea.


###### Bava Kamma 12a:11
[Bava Kamma 12a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/12a:11)

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב אִיקָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אַמֵּי: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא – עַבְדֵי כְּמִטַּלְטְלִין דָּמֵי. וְהָדְתַנְיָא לֹא קָנָה – שַׁפִּיר; הָא דְּתַנְיָא קָנָה – בְּעוֹדָן עָלָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**There are** those **who say** that Rav Ika stated a different answer: **Rav Ika, son of Rav Ami, said: According to everyone,** the legal status of **slaves is** generally **like** that of **movable property, and** therefore, **that which is taught** in the first *baraita*, that by taking possession of the slaves **he does not** also **acquire** the movable property, is **properly** understood. **And that which is taught** in the second *baraita*, that in such a case he **acquires** the movable property, applies to a case in which at the moment the slave was acquired, the movable property was **still upon him,** e.g., the slave was holding it, and it could therefore be acquired together with the slave. This is because one’s slave is considered like one’s courtyard, and any item that is placed within it is acquired for its owner.


###### Bava Kamma 12a:12
[Bava Kamma 12a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/12a:12)

וְכִי עוֹדָן עָלָיו מַאי הָוֵי? חָצֵר מְהַלֶּכֶת הִיא, וְחָצֵר מְהַלֶּכֶת – לֹא קָנָה! וְכִי תֵּימָא בְּעוֹמֵד, וְהָא אָמַר רָבָא: כֹּל שֶׁאִילּוּ מְהַלֵּךְ לֹא קָנָה – עוֹמֵד וְיוֹשֵׁב לֹא קָנָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But even if** the movable property was **still upon him, what of it?** Even if one claims a slave is like a courtyard, he **is a mobile courtyard, and a mobile courtyard does not acquire** items placed upon it. **And if you would say** that the case is one **where the slave is standing** at the time of the transaction, that is still insufficient, as **didn’t Rava say: Anything that does not acquire when moving** also **does not acquire** when it is **standing or sitting.** The fact that the slave can move gives him the status of a mobile courtyard, regardless if he is currently moving or not.


###### Bava Kamma 12a:13
[Bava Kamma 12a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/12a:13)

וְהִלְכְתָא בְּכָפוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara concludes: **And the *halakha* is** that **where** a slave is **bound up** and is unable to walk, his status is like that of an immobile courtyard, and his master will acquire anything that is placed upon him at that time.


###### Bava Kamma 12a:14
[Bava Kamma 12a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/12a:14)

וְהָתַנְיָא: הֶחְזִיק בְּקַרְקַע – קָנָה עֲבָדִים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara presents another contradiction to the first *baraita* cited above, which explicitly states that one cannot acquire slaves by taking possession of land: **But isn’t it taught** in another *baraita*: If **he took possession of the land** alone, he thereby also **acquires** the **slaves?**


###### Bava Kamma 12a:15
[Bava Kamma 12a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/12a:15)

הָתָם בְּעוֹמְדִין בְּתוֹכָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara resolves the contradiction: **There,** in the *baraita* just cited, the case is one **where** the slaves **are standing within** the borders of the land that was acquired.


###### Bava Kamma 12a:16
[Bava Kamma 12a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/12a:16)

מִכְּלָל דְּהַאי ״לֹא קָנָה״ – כְּשֶׁאֵין עוֹמְדִין בְּתוֹכָהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **By inference,** the ruling of **this** first *baraita*, which states that **he does not acquire** the slaves, is stated with regard to a case **where they are not standing within** the borders of the land that was acquired.


###### Bava Kamma 12a:17
[Bava Kamma 12a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/12a:17)

הָנִיחָא לְהָךְ לִישָּׁנָא דְּאָמַר רַב אִיקָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אַמֵּי: עַבְדָּא כְּמִטַּלְטְלִי דָּמֵי; הַיְינוּ דְּאִי עוֹמְדִין בְּתוֹכָהּ – אִין, אִי לָא – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**This works out well according to that** second **formulation of** that which **Rav Ika, son of Rav Ami, said,** that the legal status of **slaves is like** that of **movable property. This is** the reason **that if** the slaves **are standing within** the borders of the land, **yes,** they are acquired together with the land, but **if not, no,** they are not acquired. The Gemara assumes that movable property is acquired together with land only if at the time of the acquisition it is placed upon the land.


###### Bava Kamma 12a:18
[Bava Kamma 12a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/12a:18)

אֶלָּא לְהָךְ לִישָּׁנָא דְּאָמַר: עַבְדָּא כִּמְקַרְקְעֵי דָּמֵי; לְמָה לִי עוֹמְדִין בְּתוֹכָהּ? הָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מָכַר לוֹ עֶשֶׂר שָׂדוֹת בְּעֶשֶׂר מְדִינוֹת, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהֶחְזִיק בְּאַחַת מֵהֶן – קָנָה כּוּלָּן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But according to that** first **formulation** of that which Rav Ika, son of Rav Ami, **said, that** the legal status of **slaves is like** that of **land, why do I** need the slaves to be **standing within** the borders of the land? As **doesn’t Shmuel say:** If someone **sold him ten fields,** located **in ten** different **countries, once he takes possession of one of them, he has acquired all of them?** If the legal status of slaves is like that of land, then the same principle should apply to them, and it should be unnecessary for them to be standing within the land’s borders.


###### Bava Kamma 12a:19
[Bava Kamma 12a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/12a:19)

וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, לְהָךְ לִישָּׁנָא דְּאָמַר: עַבְדָּא כְּמִטַּלְטְלִין דָּמֵי; לְמָה לִי עוֹמֵד בְּתוֹכָהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara reconsiders: **But** even **according to your reasoning,** one can ask: **According to** the second **formulation of** that which Rav Ika, son of Rav Ami, **said, that** the legal status of **slaves is like** that of **movable property, why do I** need the slaves to be **standing within** the borders of the land?