## Bava Kamma Daf 30b

###### Bava Kamma 30b:1
[Bava Kamma 30b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/30b:1)

״תִּבְנוֹ וְקַשּׁוֹ״ תְּנַן, מִשּׁוּם דְּמַשְׁרְקִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
What **we learned** in the mishna was specifically with regard to a case where one put out **his straw and his hay,** which are more likely to cause injury than fertilizer and other objects, **because they are** particularly **slippery.** Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda agrees that in this case he is liable to pay for damage they cause.


###### Bava Kamma 30b:2
[Bava Kamma 30b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/30b:2)

כׇּל הַקּוֹדֵם בָּהֶן זָכָה. אָמַר רַב: בֵּין בְּגוּפָן, בֵּין בְּשִׁבְחָן. וּזְעֵירִי אָמַר: בְּשִׁבְחָן אֲבָל לֹא בְּגוּפָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It is stated in the mishna that if one puts his straw and hay out in the public domain, **whoever** takes possession **of them first acquires** them. The Sages disagreed with regard to the extent of this acquisition. **Rav says:** He acquires them **both with regard to** the items **themselves and with regard to** the value of **their enhancement,** which took place while they were in the public domain. **And Ze’eiri says:** He acquires them **with regard to** the value of **their enhancement but not with regard to** the items **themselves,** and he must pay the owner of the straw according to their value at the time he placed them in the public domain.


###### Bava Kamma 30b:3
[Bava Kamma 30b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/30b:3)

בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? רַב סָבַר: קָנְסוּ גּוּפָן מִשּׁוּם שִׁבְחָן, וּזְעֵירִי סָבַר: לֹא קָנְסוּ גּוּפָן מִשּׁוּם שִׁבְחָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**With regard to what do they disagree? Rav holds** that the Sages **penalized** the owner by revoking his ownership of the items **themselves due to** the value of **their enhancement** that he stands to earn by putting them in the public domain, **whereas Ze’eiri holds** that **they did not penalize** him by revoking his ownership of the items **themselves due to** the value of **their enhancement.** Rather, he loses only the increase in their value due to their enhancement.


###### Bava Kamma 30b:4
[Bava Kamma 30b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/30b:4)

תְּנַן: הַהוֹפֵךְ אֶת הַגָּלָל בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וְהוּזַּק בָּהֶן אַחֵר – חַיָּיב בְּנִזְקוֹ. וְאִילּוּ ״כׇּל הַקּוֹדֵם זָכָה״ לָא קָתָנֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara attempts to prove that Ze’eiri’s opinion is correct from a case where there is no enhancement at all. **We learned** in the continuation of the mishna that in the case of **one who turns over dung in the public domain and another** person **incurred damage due to it,** the former is **liable** to pay **for his damage. But it does not teach** in this clause that **whoever** takes possession of it **first acquires** it. Apparently the Sages did not revoke his ownership of the dung, as it has no enhanced value. This does not seem to accord with Rav’s opinion.


###### Bava Kamma 30b:5
[Bava Kamma 30b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/30b:5)

תְּנָא לְרֵישָׁא, וְהוּא הַדִּין לְסֵיפָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The *halakha* that whoever takes possession of it acquires it **is taught in the first clause,** with regard to one who puts out straw, **and the same is true in the last clause,** with regard to one who turns over dung. It is unnecessary to repeat it. Therefore, no support for the opinion of Ze’eiri can be derived from here.


###### Bava Kamma 30b:6
[Bava Kamma 30b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/30b:6)

וְהָא תָּנֵי עֲלַהּ: אֲסוּרִין מִשּׁוּם גָּזֵל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* **in that regard,** i.e., a *baraita* that discusses the same cases as the mishna, that the hay and straw **are forbidden due to** the prohibition against **robbery,** which apparently means that one may not take possession of the dung, contrary to Rav’s opinion?


###### Bava Kamma 30b:7
[Bava Kamma 30b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/30b:7)

כִּי קָתָנֵי ״אֲסוּרִין מִשּׁוּם גָּזֵל״ – אַכּוּלַּהּ מַתְנִיתִין קָאֵי, לְאוֹתוֹ שֶׁקָּדַם וְזָכָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **When it is taught** in the *baraita* that **they are forbidden due to** the prohibition against **robbery, it applies to the entire mishna,** not just to this particular clause, and it is referring **to** taking the items from **the one who came first and acquired** them. In other words, once someone takes possession of them, it is forbidden for anyone else to take them from him, as that is considered robbery.


###### Bava Kamma 30b:8
[Bava Kamma 30b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/30b:8)

וְהָא לָא קָתָנֵי הָכִי, דִּתְנַן: הַמּוֹצִיא תִּבְנוֹ וְקַשּׁוֹ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים לִזְבָלִים, וְהוּזַּק בָּהֶן אַחֵר – חַיָּיב בְּנִזְקוֹ, וְכׇל הַקּוֹדֵם בָּהֶן זָכָה, וּמוּתָּר מִשּׁוּם גָּזֵל. וְהַהוֹפֵךְ אֶת הַגָּלָל לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וְהוּזַּק בָּהֶן אַחֵר – חַיָּיב, וְאָסוּר מִשּׁוּם גָּזֵל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But it is not taught in this manner** elsewhere, **as we learned** in a *baraita*: In the case of **one who takes out his straw and his hay to the public domain to** use afterward as **fertilizer and another** person **incurred damage due to them, he is liable** to pay **for his damage. And** furthermore, **whoever** takes possession **of them first acquires** them, **and is permitted** to do so **with regard to** the prohibition against **robbery. And** in the case of **one who turns over dung in the public domain and another incurred damage due to it,** he **is liable, but it is forbidden** to take possession of it **due to** the prohibition against **robbery.**


###### Bava Kamma 30b:9
[Bava Kamma 30b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/30b:9)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: גָּלָל קָרָמֵית?! דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ שֶׁבַח – קָנְסוּ גּוּפוֹ מִשּׁוּם שִׁבְחוֹ, דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ שֶׁבַח – לֹא קָנְסוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:** Is it from the case of **dung** that **you raise a contradiction** to Rav’s opinion that one may take possession of straw and hay in the public domain? With regard to **an item that has** added value due to **enhancement** over time as a result of lying in the public domain, Rav holds that the Sages **penalized** one who leaves it in the public domain, revoking his ownership of the item **itself because of its** added value due to **enhancement,** but with regard to **an item that does not have** added value due to **enhancement** by lying in the public domain, such as dung, perhaps Rav concedes that **they did not penalize** him in this manner.


###### Bava Kamma 30b:10
[Bava Kamma 30b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/30b:10)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר קָנְסוּ גּוּפָן מִשּׁוּם שִׁבְחָן; לְאַלְתַּר קָנְסִינַן, אוֹ לְכִי מַיְיתִי שְׁבָחָא קָנְסִינַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: **According to the statement of** Rav, **who says that they penalized** him by revoking his ownership of **the items themselves because of its** added value due to **enhancement, do we impose** this **penalty immediately** when he takes the straw out, allowing one to take possession of it even before it has time for its value to become enhanced, **or do we impose the penalty** only **when its enhancement** in value **emerges?**


###### Bava Kamma 30b:11
[Bava Kamma 30b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/30b:11)

תָּא שְׁמַע, מִדְּקָאָיְירִינַן גָּלָל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come** and **hear** a proof that the penalty is imposed immediately **from** the fact **that we spoke of** a difficulty to Rav’s opinion from the case of **dung,** whose value does not become enhanced, indicating that according to Rav the penalty is imposed before there is any enhancement.


###### Bava Kamma 30b:12
[Bava Kamma 30b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/30b:12)

וְתִסְבְּרָא?! כִּי אַיְירִינַן גָּלָל – מִיקַּמֵּי דִּלְשַׁנֵּי רַב נַחְמָן; לְבָתַר דְּשַׁנִּי רַב נַחְמָן – מִי אִיכָּא לְמִירְמֵא גָּלָל כְּלָל?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **And** how can **you understand** this proof? **When we spoke** of **dung,** this was **before Rav Naḥman** bar Yitzḥak **resolved** the difficulty, explaining that perhaps Rav concedes that there is no penalty in this case. But **after Rav Naḥman resolved** it, **is it at all possible to raise an objection** to Rav’s opinion from the case of **dung?** Therefore, no proof can be brought from there.


###### Bava Kamma 30b:13
[Bava Kamma 30b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/30b:13)

לֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי: שְׁטָר שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ רִבִּית – קוֹנְסִין אוֹתוֹ, וְאֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה לֹא אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְלֹא אֶת הָרִבִּית; דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: גּוֹבֶה אֶת הַקֶּרֶן, אֲבָל לֹא אֶת הָרִבִּית. לֵימָא רַב דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, וּזְעֵירִי דְּאָמַר כְּרַבָּנַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Let us say** that this dispute is **parallel to** a dispute between ***tanna’im*,** as it is stated in a *baraita*: With regard to **a document in which** a loan with **interest is written, we penalize** the lender, **and he** therefore **collects neither the principal nor the interest;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: He collects the principal but not the interest. Shall we say** that **Rav stated** his opinion **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir,** whose penalty applies to the value of the loan itself due to its enhancement, i.e., the interest, which is prohibited, **and** that **Ze’eiri stated** his opinion **in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who impose the penalty only on the interest?


###### Bava Kamma 30b:14
[Bava Kamma 30b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/30b:14)

אָמַר לְךָ רַב: אֲנָא דַּאֲמַרִי – אֲפִילּוּ לְרַבָּנַן, עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמְרִי רַבָּנַן הָתָם, אֶלָּא קֶרֶן דִּבְהֶתֵּירָא. אֲבָל הָכָא, קֶרֶן גּוּפָא קָמַזֵּיק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that **Rav** could have **said to you: I stated** my opinion **even** according **to the** opinion of the **Rabbis. The Rabbis were saying there** that the principal is not forfeited by the lender **only because the principal** was loaned **in a permissible** manner, as the prohibition applies only to the interest. **But here,** in the case of one who put his straw in the public domain, **the principal,** i.e., the hazardous object **itself, causes damage.** Therefore, the penalty should relate to the object itself.


###### Bava Kamma 30b:15
[Bava Kamma 30b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/30b:15)

וּזְעֵירִי אָמַר לָךְ: אֲנָא דַּאֲמַרִי אֲפִילּוּ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר – עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר הָתָם, אֶלָּא דְּמִשְּׁעַת כְּתִיבָה דַּעֲבַד לֵיהּ שׂוּמָא; אֲבָל הָכָא – מִי יֵימַר דְּמַזֵּיק?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** conversely, **Ze’eiri** could have **said to you: I stated** my opinion **even** according **to** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir.** The reason **Rabbi Meir was saying there,** in the case of a loan with interest, that the principal is also forfeited is **only that** the prohibition was already violated **from the time of the writing** of the document, **by making an appraisal [*shuma*]** of how much money is to be repaid, which included interest. **But here,** in the case of straw that one placed in the public domain, **who can say that it will cause damage?** Since the damage was not inevitable at the time that the straw was placed there, there is no justification for revoking the ownership of the straw itself.


###### Bava Kamma 30b:16
[Bava Kamma 30b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/30b:16)

לֵימָא כְּהָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי: הַמּוֹצִיא תִּבְנוֹ וְקַשּׁוֹ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים לִזְבָלִים, וְהוּזַּק בָּהֶן אַחֵר – חַיָּיב בְּנִזְקוֹ, וְכׇל הַקּוֹדֵם בָּהֶן זָכָה, וַאֲסוּרִין מִשּׁוּם גָּזֵל. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הַמְקַלְקְלִין בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְהִזִּיקוּ – חַיָּיבִין לְשַׁלֵּם, וְכׇל הַקּוֹדֵם בָּהֶן זָכָה, וּמוּתָּרִין מִשּׁוּם גָּזֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests alternatively: **Let us say** that the dispute between Rav and Ze’eiri is **parallel to** a dispute between **these *tanna’im*,** as it is stated in a *baraita*: In the case of **one who takes his straw and his hay out to the public domain to** use afterward as **fertilizer, and another incurred damage due to them,** he is **liable** to pay **for his damage. And whoever** takes possession **of them first acquires** them, **but they are forbidden due to** the prohibition against **robbery. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:** In the case of **anyone who places obstacles in the public domain and they cause damage,** he is **liable to pay. And whoever** takes possession of **them first acquires** them **and they are permitted** to him **with regard to** the prohibition against **robbery.**


###### Bava Kamma 30b:17
[Bava Kamma 30b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/30b:17)

הָא גוּפָא קַשְׁיָא – אָמְרַתְּ כׇּל הַקּוֹדֵם בָּהֶן זָכָה, וַהֲדַר קָאָמַר אֲסוּרִין מִשּׁוּם גָּזֵל! אֶלָּא לָאו הָכִי קָאָמַר: וְכׇל הַקּוֹדֵם בָּהֶן זָכָה – בְּשִׁבְחָן, וַאֲסוּרִין מִשּׁוּם גָּזֵל – אַגּוּפָן; וַאֲתָא רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לְמֵימַר: אֲפִילּוּ גּוּפָן נָמֵי – כׇּל הַקּוֹדֵם בָּהֶן זָכָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **This matter itself is difficult.** First **you said** that **whoever** takes possession **of them first acquires** them, **and then it says that they are forbidden due to** the prohibition against **robbery,** indicating that one may not take possession of them. **Rather, is this not what** the *baraita* **is saying:** This statement: **And whoever** takes possession **of them first acquires** them, is stated **with regard to** the value of **their enhancement.** And this statement: **But they are forbidden due to** the prohibition against **robbery,** is stated **with regard to** the items **themselves? And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel came to say** that **even** with regard to the items **themselves, whoever** takes possession **of them first acquires** them. Therefore, this tannaitic dispute apparently relates to whether the penalty applies to the items themselves or just to the value of their enhancement.


###### Bava Kamma 30b:18
[Bava Kamma 30b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/30b:18)

לִזְעֵירִי – וַדַּאי תַּנָּאֵי הִיא. לְרַב – מִי לֵימָא תַּנָּאֵי הִיא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **According to Ze’eiri, it is certainly** a dispute between ***tanna’im*,** since Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel explicitly deems it permitted for one to take possession of the items. According **to Rav, shall we say** that **it is** a dispute between ***tanna’im*?**


###### Bava Kamma 30b:19
[Bava Kamma 30b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/30b:19)

אָמַר לְךָ רַב: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא – קָנְסוּ גּוּפָן מִשּׁוּם שִׁבְחָן; וְהָכָא, בַּהֲלָכָה וְאֵין מוֹרִין כֵּן קָא מִיפַּלְגִי – דְּאִתְּמַר, רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה, וְאֵין מוֹרִין כֵּן. רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה אָמַר: הֲלָכָה, וּמוֹרִין כֵּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds that **Rav** could have **said to you:** According **to all** opinions, the Sages **imposed a penalty** revoking his ownership of the items **themselves due to** the value of **their enhancement. And here** in the *baraita* the *tanna’im* **disagree with regard to** whether or not it is ruled that this is the ***halakha* but** a public **ruling is not issued to that effect, as it was stated** that *amora’im* disagreed as to whether the *halakha* revoking his ownership of the items themselves should be taught to the public. **Rav Huna** says that **Rav says:** This is the ***halakha*, but** a public **ruling is not issued to that effect.** In other words, although it is permitted for one to take possession of the straw, halakhic authorities should not publicly rule that people may do so, lest people become accustomed to taking items that belong to others. This is the opinion of the first *tanna* in the *baraita*. **Rav Adda bar Ahava says:** This is the ***halakha* and** a public **ruling is issued to that effect.** This, Rav could have said, is the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.


###### Bava Kamma 30b:20
[Bava Kamma 30b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/30b:20)

אִינִי?! וְהָא רַב הוּנָא אַפְקַר חוּשְׁלֵי, רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה אַפְקַר

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Is that so? But didn’t Rav Huna declare dried barley [*ḥushelei*]** that people laid out in the public domain **ownerless?** Similarly, didn’t **Rav Adda bar Ahava declare ownerless**