## Bava Kamma Daf 93b

###### Bava Kamma 93b:1
[Bava Kamma 93b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/93b:1)

מַתְנִי׳ **הַגּוֹזֵל** עֵצִים וַעֲשָׂאָן כֵּלִים, צֶמֶר וַעֲשָׂאָן בְּגָדִים – מְשַׁלֵּם כִּשְׁעַת הַגְּזֵלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In the case of **one who robs** another of **wood and fashions it** into **vessels,** or one who robs another of **wool and fashions it** into **garments,** he **pays** the robbery victim **according to** the value of the goods at the **time of the robbery,** but he need not return the vessels or garments. He has acquired the stolen items because they had undergone a change.


###### Bava Kamma 93b:2
[Bava Kamma 93b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/93b:2)

גָּזַל פָּרָה מְעוּבֶּרֶת – וְיָלְדָה, רָחֵל טְעוּנָה – וּגְזָזָהּ; מְשַׁלֵּם דְּמֵי פָרָה הָעוֹמֶדֶת לֵילֵד, וּדְמֵי רָחֵל הָעוֹמֶדֶת לִיגָּזֵז.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If one **robbed** another of **a pregnant cow and it** then **gave birth** while in his possession, or if one robbed another of **a ewe** that was **laden** with wool **and** the robber then **sheared it,** the robber **pays** the **value of a cow that is ready to give birth or** the **value of a ewe that is ready to be shorn.** He pays the value of the animal at the time of the robbery, and the calf or the wool remains his.


###### Bava Kamma 93b:3
[Bava Kamma 93b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/93b:3)

גָּזַל פָּרָה – וְנִתְעַבְּרָה אֶצְלוֹ וְיָלְדָה, רָחֵל – וְנִטְעֲנָה אֶצְלוֹ וּגְזָזָהּ; מְשַׁלֵּם כִּשְׁעַת הַגְּזֵלָה. זֶה הַכְּלָל: כׇּל הַגַּזְלָנִים מְשַׁלְּמִין כִּשְׁעַת הַגְּזֵלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If one **robbed** another of **a cow, and it became pregnant in his** possession, **and it** then **gave birth;** or if one robbed another of **a ewe, and it became laden** with wool **in his** possession, **and** he then **sheared it,** then the robber **pays according to** the value of the animal at the **time of the robbery. This is the principle: All robbers pay according to** the value of the stolen item at the **time of the robbery.**


###### Bava Kamma 93b:4
[Bava Kamma 93b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/93b:4)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמְרִי: עֵצִים וַעֲשָׂאָן כֵּלִים – אִין, שִׁיפָּן – לָא; צֶמֶר וַעֲשָׂאָן בְּגָדִים – אִין, לִיבְּנָן – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Sages **say:** It can be inferred from the mishna that if one robbed another of **wood and fashioned it into vessels, yes,** the robber acquires the wood due to the change. If he merely **sanded it, no,** the robber does not acquire it, as this is not a significant change. Similarly, if one robbed another of **wool and fashioned it** into **garments, yes,** he has acquired the wool due to the change. If **he** merely **washed it, no,** he has not acquired it.


###### Bava Kamma 93b:5
[Bava Kamma 93b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/93b:5)

וּרְמִינְהִי: גָּזַל עֵצִים וְשִׁיפָּן, אֲבָנִים וְסִיתְּתָן, צֶמֶר (וְלִיבְּנָן) [וְלִיבְּנוֹ], פִּשְׁתָּן וְנִקָּהוּ – מְשַׁלֵּם כִּשְׁעַת הַגְּזֵלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the Gemara **raises a contradiction** from a *baraita*: If one **robbed** another of **wood and sanded it,** or **stones and smoothed them,** or **wool and washed it,** or **flax and cleaned it, he pays according to** the value of the stolen item at the **time of the robbery.** This *baraita* teaches that even a change such as sanding wood is regarded as a significant change.


###### Bava Kamma 93b:6
[Bava Kamma 93b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/93b:6)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: תַּנָּא דִּידַן קָתָנֵי שִׁינּוּי דְּרַבָּנַן – דְּהָדַר, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן שִׁינּוּי דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said:** This does not contradict the mishna. **The *tanna* of our** mishna **teaches** the *halakha* with regard to **a change** deemed significant **by rabbinic** law, which is not deemed significant by Torah law, **as it is reversible. And all the more so,** if the robber effects **a change** deemed significant **by Torah** law, i.e., an irreversible change, he acquires the stolen item due to the change.


###### Bava Kamma 93b:7
[Bava Kamma 93b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/93b:7)

עֵצִים וַעֲשָׂאָן כֵּלִים – בְּעֵצִים מְשׁוּפִּין, וּמַאי נִינְהוּ? נְסָרִים; דְּשִׁינּוּי דְּהָדַר לִבְרִיָּיתֵיהּ הוּא – דְּאִי בָּעֵי מְשַׁלֵּיף לְהוּ. צֶמֶר וַעֲשָׂאָן בְּגָדִים – בְּצֶמֶר טָווּי; דְּשִׁינּוּי דַּהֲדַר לִבְרִיָּיתֵיהּ הוּא – דְּאִי בָּעֵי סָתַר לֵיהּ. וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן שִׁינּוּי דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: Accordingly, it must be that the case in the mishna, where the change is reversible, where one robbed another of **wood and fashioned it into vessels,** is stated **with regard to** one who robbed another of **sanded wood. And what are they? Boards** that the robber used to construct a vessel, **which is a change** in which the item **can revert to its original state, as, if** the robber **desires, he** can **disassemble them.** Similarly, the case of one who robbed another of **wool and fashioned it into garments** refers **to wool** that was already **spun, as** fashioning them into garments **is a change** in which the item **can revert to its original state, as, if** the robber **desires, he** can **unravel them.** The mishna teaches that the robber acquires the stolen item by making these changes, **and all the more so** the robber acquires the stolen item through **a change** deemed significant **by Torah law.**


###### Bava Kamma 93b:8
[Bava Kamma 93b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/93b:8)

וְתַנָּא בָּרָא – שִׁינּוּי דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא קָתָנֵי, וְשִׁינּוּי דְּרַבָּנַן לָא קָתָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye continues his explanation: **And the *tanna* of the *baraita* teaches** the *halakha* with regard to **a change** deemed significant **by Torah law, but he does not teach** the *halakha* with regard to **a change** deemed significant **by rabbinic law.** It is possible that he maintains that the robber does not acquire the stolen item due to such a change.


###### Bava Kamma 93b:9
[Bava Kamma 93b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/93b:9)

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר, תַּנָּא דִּידַן נָמֵי שִׁינּוּי דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא קָתָנֵי: עֵצִים וַעֲשָׂאָן כֵּלִים – בּוּכָאנֵי, דְּהַיְינוּ שִׁיפָּן; צֶמֶר וַעֲשָׂאָן בְּגָדִים – נַמְטֵי, דְּהַיְינוּ שִׁינּוּי דְּלָא הָדַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi stated** another answer: **The *tanna* of our** mishna **is also teaching** the *halakha* with regard to **a change** deemed significant **by Torah law.** The case in the mishna of one who robbed another of **wood and fashioned it** into **vessels** is referring to one who constructed **pestles [*bukhanei*], which is** analogous to the case mentioned in the *baraita* where **one sanded them,** since a pestle is formed by trimming the wood in an irreversible manner. Similarly, the case in the mishna of one who robbed another of **wool and fashioned it into garments** is referring to one who fashioned the wool into pieces of **felt [*namtei*], which is an irreversible change.**


###### Bava Kamma 93b:10
[Bava Kamma 93b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/93b:10)

וְלִיבּוּן מִי הָוֵי שִׁינּוּי? וּרְמִינְהִי: לֹא הִסְפִּיק לִיתְּנוֹ לוֹ עַד שֶׁצְּבָעוֹ – פָּטוּר. לִבְּנוֹ וְלֹא צְבָעוֹ – חַיָּיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks a question with regard to the *baraita*: **But does washing** effect a significant **change,** so that one who robs another of wool and washes it acquires the wool and pays its value at the time of robbery? **And** the Gemara **raises a contradiction** from a mishna that discusses the *halakhot* of the first of the sheared wool, which one must give to a priest (*Ḥullin* 135a): If the owner of the sheep **did not manage to give** the sheared wool **to** the priest **before he dyed it,** he is **exempt** from giving it to the priest, as the obligation is in effect only with regard to wool remaining in its original state. By contrast, if **he washed it but did not dye it,** he is **obligated** to give it to the priest. This indicates that washing does not effect a significant change.


###### Bava Kamma 93b:11
[Bava Kamma 93b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/93b:11)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לָא קַשְׁיָא; הָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, הָא רַבָּנַן. דְּתַנְיָא: גְּזָזוֹ, טְווֹאוֹ וַאֲרָגוֹ – אֵין מִצְטָרֵף. לִבְּנוֹ – רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֵין מִצְטָרֵף, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: מִצְטָרֵף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said:** It is **not difficult. This** *baraita* is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon,** whereas **that** mishna is in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis, as it is taught** in a *baraita* with regard to the first of the sheared wool: If one **sheared it, spun it, and wove it,** the sheared wool **does not combine** with the wool from other sheep to constitute the minimum quantity of wool for which one is obligated to give the first of the sheared wool to the priest. If one **washed it,** then **Rabbi Shimon says** that it **does not combine** with the wool of other sheep, as washing effects a significant change, **and the Rabbis say that** it **combines** with the wool of other sheep, as washing does not effect a significant change. Their opinions correspond to the opinions in the *baraita* and mishna previously quoted.


###### Bava Kamma 93b:12
[Bava Kamma 93b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/93b:12)

רָבָא אָמַר: הָא וְהָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא; הָא דְּנַפְּצֵיהּ נַפּוֹצֵי, הָא דִּסַרְקֵיהּ סָרוֹקֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava stated** another answer: **This and that,** i.e., both the mishna and the *baraita*, are in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon, and** it is **not difficult. This** mishna is referring to a case **where one untangled** the strands of wool by hand before washing it. In this case, the washing is not fully effective, and does not effect a significant change. **That** *baraita* is referring to a case **where one combed it** before washing it. The washing is more effective and consequently effects a significant change.


###### Bava Kamma 93b:13
[Bava Kamma 93b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/93b:13)

רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין אָמַר: הָא דְּחַוְּורֵיהּ חַוּוֹרֵי, הָא דְּכַבְרֵיהּ כַּבְרוֹיֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin stated** another answer: **This** mishna is referring to a case **where** one merely **whitened it,** which is not a significant change. **That** *baraita* is referring to a case **where one bleached it** with sulfur, which is a significant change.


###### Bava Kamma 93b:14
[Bava Kamma 93b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/93b:14)

הַשְׁתָּא יֵשׁ לוֹמַר צֶבַע לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לָא הָוֵי שִׁינּוּי, לִיבּוּן הָוֵי שִׁינּוּי? דְּתַנְיָא: גָּזַז רִאשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן וּצְבָעוֹ, רִאשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן וּטְווֹאוֹ, רִאשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן וַאֲרָגוֹ – אֵין מִצְטָרֵף. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: צְבָעוֹ – מִצְטָרֵף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Having demonstrated that, according to Rabbi Shimon, washing effects a significant change, the Gemara asks: **Now** that **it can be said** that, according **to Rabbi Shimon, dye does not** effect a significant **change,** as the Gemara will prove, can it be said that **washing** effects a significant **change? As it is taught** in a *baraita*: If he **sheared** sheep **one by one and dyed** the wool of each sheep before shearing the next sheep, or sheared them **one by one and spun** the wool, or sheared them **one by one and wove** the wool, then the wool sheared from the different sheep **does not combine** to constitute the minimum quantity of wool for which one is obligated to give the first of the sheared wool to the priest. **Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon:** Even if he **dyed it,** it **combines** with the other wool. This indicates that, according to Rabbi Shimon, even dyeing the wool is not a significant change, so how could he maintain that washing it is?


###### Bava Kamma 93b:15
[Bava Kamma 93b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/93b:15)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לָא קַשְׁיָא; הָא רַבָּנַן אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, הָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said:** This is **not difficult. This** statement, that washed wool does not combine with other wool, is the opinion of **the Rabbis in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Shimon,** while **that** statement, that even dyed wool combines with other wool, is the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Shimon.** There is a dispute as to what Rabbi Shimon rules with regard to this issue.


###### Bava Kamma 93b:16
[Bava Kamma 93b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/93b:16)

רָבָא אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם לָא פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה, וְשָׁאנֵי צֶבַע – הוֹאִיל וְיָכוֹל לְהַעֲבִירוֹ עַל יְדֵי צָפוֹן. וְכִי קָתָנֵי הָתָם: לֹא הִסְפִּיק לִיתְּנוֹ לוֹ עַד שֶׁצְּבָעוֹ – פָּטוּר, וְאוֹקִימְנָא כְּדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל; בְּקָלָא אִילָן דְּלָא עָבַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: Actually, the Rabbis do not disagree with Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda,** and they are also of the opinion that Rabbi Shimon holds that washing effects a significant change. **And** as for the apparent contradiction, **dye is different** and it does not effect a significant change, **since one is able to remove it with soap [*tzafon*]** and return the wool to its previous state. **And when it is taught there,** in the mishna cited above, that if **one did not manage to give** the sheared wool **to** the priest **before he dyed it he is exempt, and** this ruling **was established in accordance with all opinions,** it was not stated with regard to ordinary dye but **with regard to indigo, which cannot be removed** with soap and therefore effects a permanent and therefore significant change.


###### Bava Kamma 93b:17
[Bava Kamma 93b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/93b:17)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה, וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי, וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר, וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל – כּוּלְּהוּ סְבִירָא לְהוּ: שִׁינּוּי בִּמְקוֹמוֹ עוֹמֵד. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה – הָא דַּאֲמַרַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Abaye said: Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, and Beit Shammai, and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, and Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, and Rabbi Yishmael all hold** that despite **a change,** the changed item **remains in its place,** i.e., the changed item is still considered to have the status it had before the change. The Gemara proceeds to prove that each of these *tanna’im* holds this way: The opinion of **Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda** is **that which we** just **said.** He says that, according to Rabbi Shimon, even if the wool is dyed it still combines with the wool of other animals to constitute the minimum quantity of wool for which one is obligated to give the first of the sheared wool to the priest.


###### Bava Kamma 93b:18
[Bava Kamma 93b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/93b:18)

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מַאי הִיא? דְּתַנְיָא: נָתַן לָהּ חִטִּין בְּאֶתְנַנָּהּ, וַעֲשָׂאָן סוֹלֶת; זֵיתִים וַעֲשָׂאָן שֶׁמֶן; עֲנָבִים וַעֲשָׂאָן יַיִן – תָּנֵי חֲדָא: אָסוּר, וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: מוּתָּר. וְאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף, תָּנֵי גּוּרְיוֹן

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What is** the source that indicates that **Beit Shammai** maintain that an item that undergoes a change is considered to have the same status that it had before the change? **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: If one **gave** a prostitute **wheat as her payment, and she** ground it and **converted it into flour;** or if he gave her **olives, and she** squeezed them and **converted them into oil;** or if he gave her **grapes, and she** squeezed them and **converted them into wine;** and if, in any of these cases, she subsequently consecrated the final product, **it is taught** in **one** *baraita* that it is **prohibited** to sacrifice them upon the altar as a meal-offering or libation, as the Torah states: “You shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the price of a dog into the House of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 23:19). **And it is taught** in **another** *baraita* that it is **permitted,** as the Gemara will explain. **And Rav Yosef says:** It was **taught** by **Guryon**