## Bava Kamma Daf 95a

###### Bava Kamma 95a:1
[Bava Kamma 95a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/95a:1)

כָּאן בִּגְזֵילָה קַיֶּימֶת, כָּאן בְּשֶׁאֵין גְּזֵילָה קַיֶּימֶת. וְהָא אַבְנֵט – דִּגְזֵילָה קַיֶּימֶת הִיא! מַאי ״אַבְנֵט״ – דְּמֵי אַבְנֵט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Here,** the *baraita* that rules that one may accept the stolen item is referring to a case **where the stolen item** still **exists. There,** the *baraita* that rules not to accept it even if the robber seeks only to fulfill his obligation to Heaven is referring to a case where the **stolen item does not** still **exist.** The Gemara asks: **But** the incident in which the robber’s wife told him that he would have to return even the **belt,** which was the impetus for instituting the ordinance for the penitents, was a case **where** the **stolen item** still **exists,** in which case the robber would be obligated to return it even after the ordinance was instituted. The Gemara answers: **What** is meant by: Even the **belt?** The **value of the belt,** but the actual belt was no longer in his possession.


###### Bava Kamma 95a:2
[Bava Kamma 95a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/95a:2)

וְכֹל הֵיכָא דִּגְזֵילָה קַיֶּימֶת, לָא עֲבוּד רַבָּנַן תַּקַּנְתָּא?! וַהֲרֵי מָרִישׁ, דִּגְזֵילָה קַיֶּימֶת הִיא; וּתְנַן: עַל הַמָּרִישׁ הַגָּזוּל שֶׁבְּנָאוֹ בַּבִּירָה, שֶׁיִּטּוֹל דָּמָיו – מִפְּנֵי תַּקָּנַת הַשָּׁבִים! שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּכֵיוָן דְּאִיכָּא פְּסֵידָא דְבִירָה – שַׁוְּיוּהָ רַבָּנַן כִּדְלֵיתַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** is it so that **the Sages did not institute an ordinance** for the penitent **anywhere that** the **stolen item** still **exists? But there is** the case of **a beam, which is a stolen item that** still **exists, and we learned** in a mishna (*Gittin* 55a): **With regard to a stolen beam that** the robber **built into a building,** the Sages instituted **that** the robbery victim **should take its monetary** value and not the actual beam **because of the ordinance** instituted for **the penitent,** i.e., so that the penitent not be required to destroy his house. This indicates that the ordinance instituted for the penitent is in effect even when the stolen item still exists. The Gemara answers: **There it is different. Since** in that case **there is the loss of the** entire **building, the Sages treat** the beam **as though it were not** in existence.


###### Bava Kamma 95a:3
[Bava Kamma 95a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/95a:3)

גָּזַל פָּרָה מְעוּבֶּרֶת וְיָלְדָה וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַגּוֹזֵל רָחֵל וּגְזָזָהּ, פָּרָה וְיָלְדָה – מְשַׁלֵּם אוֹתָהּ וְאֶת גִּיזּוֹתֶיהָ וְאֶת וַלְדוֹתֶיהָ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: גְּזֵילָה חוֹזֶרֶת בְּעֵינֶיהָ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: רוֹאִין אוֹתָהּ כְּאִילּוּ הִיא שׁוּמָא אֶצְלוֹ בְּכֶסֶף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: If one **robbed** another of **a pregnant cow, and it** then **gave birth** while in the robber’s possession, or if one robbed another of a ewe that was laden with wool and the robber then sheared it, he pays the owner the value of a cow that is ready to give birth, or the value of a ewe that is ready to be shorn. In connection with this, **the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: **One who robs** another of **a ewe and sheared it,** and similarly, one who robs another of **a cow and it gave birth,** must **pay it and its sheared** wool **or** it and **its offspring;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: A stolen item is returned as is. Rabbi Shimon says:** A stolen item **is viewed as though it had been monetarily appraised** at the time of the robbery, and the robber pays only that amount.


###### Bava Kamma 95a:4
[Bava Kamma 95a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/95a:4)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מַאי טַעְמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר – מִשּׁוּם דְּקָסָבַר: שִׁינּוּי בִּמְקוֹמוֹ עוֹמֵד? אוֹ דִילְמָא, בְּעָלְמָא שִׁינּוּי קוֹנֶה, וְהָכָא קְנָסָא הוּא דְּקָא קָנֵיס?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies the different opinions in this *baraita*. **A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: **What is the reasoning of Rabbi Meir,** who holds that the robber returns the animal and its sheared wool or the animal and its offspring? Is it **due to** the fact **that he holds** that despite **a change,** the changed item **remains in its place?** Despite its changes, the animal always remained in the possession of the robbery victims, and consequently any increase in value belongs to them. **Or, perhaps** Rabbi Meir **generally** holds that one **acquires** an item due to **a change** in it, and therefore the wool or offspring should belong to the robber by right, **but here it is a penalty that he imposes,** which forces the robber to return items that are technically his.


###### Bava Kamma 95a:5
[Bava Kamma 95a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/95a:5)

לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? לְהֵיכָא דִּכְחַשָׁה מִכְחָשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **In what** case does the reasoning of Rabbi Meir make a practical **difference? In** a case **where** the stolen item was **devalued** since the time of the robbery. If Rabbi Meir’s reason is that despite a change, the changed item remains in its place, it is returned as is, even if its current value is less than what its value had been at the time of the robbery. But if he requires the robber to return the item itself because of a penalty, and by right the robber acquired the animal due to the change, then in this case, where the value decreased, the robber would be required to return what its value had been at the time of the robbery.


###### Bava Kamma 95a:6
[Bava Kamma 95a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/95a:6)

תָּא שְׁמַע: גָּזַל בְּהֵמָה וְהִזְקִינָה, עֲבָדִים וְהִזְקִינוּ – מְשַׁלֵּם כִּשְׁעַת הַגְּזֵילָה. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, בַּעֲבָדִים אוֹמֵר לוֹ: ״הֲרֵי שֶׁלְּךָ לְפָנֶיךָ״. וְאִילּוּ בְּהֵמָה – כִּשְׁעַת הַגְּזֵילָה;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara attempts to find a solution to this question: **Come** and **hear** what was taught in the mishna (96b): If one **robbed** another of **an animal and it aged** while in his possession, consequently diminishing its value, or if one robbed another of **slaves and they aged, he pays according to** the value of the stolen item at **the time of the robbery. Rabbi Meir says: With regard to slaves,** the robber **says to** the owner: **That which is yours is before you.** The Gemara comments: **But** this indicates that with regard to **an animal** that aged while in the possession of the robber Rabbi Meir concedes to the first *tanna*, and he too holds that **he pays according to** what its value had been at **the time of the robbery.**


###### Bava Kamma 95a:7
[Bava Kamma 95a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/95a:7)

וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ סָבַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר שִׁינּוּי בִּמְקוֹמוֹ עוֹמֵד, אֲפִילּוּ בְּהֵמָה נָמֵי! אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, קָסָבַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר שִׁינּוּי קוֹנֶה – וְהָכָא קְנָסָא הוּא דְּקָא קָנֵיס?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: **And if it enters your mind** to say that **Rabbi Meir holds** that despite **a change,** the changed item **remains in its place,** then the **animal** should be returned as it is in the case of the animal that aged, **as well. Rather,** must one **not conclude from** the mishna that **Rabbi Meir holds** that one **acquires** an item due to **a change** in the item, **but here,** in the case of a stolen animal that subsequently was shorn or gave birth, the payment of wool or offspring **is a penalty** with **which he penalizes** the robber, so that the robber will not benefit from the increased value of the stolen item?


###### Bava Kamma 95a:8
[Bava Kamma 95a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/95a:8)

אָמְרִי, רַבִּי מֵאִיר לְדִבְרֵיהֶם דְּרַבָּנַן קָאָמַר לְהוּ: לְדִידִי – שִׁינּוּי אֵין קוֹנֶה, וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּהֵמָה נָמֵי. אֶלָּא לְדִידְכוּ, דְּאָמְרִיתוּ שִׁינּוּי קוֹנֶה – אוֹדוֹ לִי מִיהַת בְּעַבְדָּא, דְּכִמְקַרְקְעֵי דָּמֵי, וְקַרְקַע אֵינָהּ נִגְזֶלֶת! וְאָמְרִי לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן: לָא, עַבְדָּא כְּמִטַּלְטְלִי דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **say** in response: Rabbi Meir’s reasoning cannot be proven from the mishna, since it is possible to say that **Rabbi Meir is speaking to** the Rabbis **in accordance with the Rabbis’** own **statement.** His statement should be understood as follows: **According to my own** opinion, one **does not acquire** an item due to **a change** in the item, **and an animal** that was stolen and then aged should be returned as it is now, **as well. But according to you, who say** that one **acquires** an item due to **a change** in it, **agree with me in any event** that **with regard to a slave,** he is returned as is. This is **because his legal status is like** that of **real estate, and real estate cannot be stolen. And the Rabbis say to him** in response: **No,** for the purpose of robbery, **the legal status of a slave is like** that of **movable property.**


###### Bava Kamma 95a:9
[Bava Kamma 95a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/95a:9)

תָּא שְׁמַע: לִצְבּוֹעַ לוֹ אָדוֹם וּצְבָעוֹ שָׁחוֹר, שָׁחוֹר וּצְבָעוֹ אָדוֹם – רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: נוֹתֵן לוֹ דְּמֵי צַמְרוֹ. דְּמֵי צַמְרוֹ – אִין, דְּמֵי צַמְרוֹ וְשִׁבְחוֹ – לָא; וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ סָבַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר שִׁינּוּי אֵין קוֹנֶה, דְּמֵי צַמְרוֹ וְשִׁבְחוֹ בָּעֵי לְמִיתַּב לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara again attempts to find a solution to the question: **Come** and **hear** what was taught in the mishna (100b): If one gave wool to a dyer **to dye it red for him and he dyed it black,** or to dye it **black and he dyed it red, Rabbi Meir says:** The dyer **gives** the owner of the wool the **value of his wool,** since the dyer violated the owner’s wishes. It can be inferred from this mishna: The **value of his wool, yes,** he must give it; but the **value of his wool and its enhancement,** i.e., the amount by which the value of the wool increased because it was dyed, **no,** he need not give it. **And if it enters your mind** to say that **Rabbi Meir holds** that one **does not acquire** an item due to **a change** in the item, the dyer should be **required to return** the **value of his wool and its enhancement to** the owner, as it never left the owner’s possession.


###### Bava Kamma 95a:10
[Bava Kamma 95a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/95a:10)

אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, קָסָבַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר שִׁינּוּי קוֹנֶה, וְהָכָא קְנָסָא הוּא דְּקָא קָנֵיס? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, isn’t it** correct to **conclude from** the mishna that **Rabbi Meir holds that** one **acquires** an item due to **a change** in the item, **but here,** in the case of a stolen animal that was subsequently shorn or gave birth, the payment of wool or offspring **is a penalty** with **which he penalizes** the robber, so that the robber will not benefit from the increased value of the stolen item? The Gemara affirms this: **Learn from** the mishna that this is indeed the reasoning of Rabbi Meir.


###### Bava Kamma 95a:11
[Bava Kamma 95a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/95a:11)

אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: הָא – לָא אִיבְּעִי לַן; מִדְּאָפֵיךְ רַב וְתָנֵי: ״גָּזַל פָּרָה וְהִזְקִינָה, עֲבָדִים וְהִזְקִינוּ – מְשַׁלֵּם כִּשְׁעַת הַגְּזֵילָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בַּעֲבָדִים – אוֹמֵר לוֹ: הֲרֵי שֶׁלְּךָ לְפָנֶיךָ״ – וַדַּאי לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר שִׁינּוּי קוֹנֶה, וְהָכָא קְנָסָא הוּא דְּקָא קָנֵיס לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**There are** those **who say: This,** i.e., Rabbi Meir’s reasoning, **was never in question for us.** Why not? **From** the fact **that Rav reversed** the opinions in the mishna on 96b **and taught** it as follows: If one **robbed** another of **an animal and it aged,** or if one robbed another of **slaves and they aged, he pays according to** what their value had been at **the time of the robbery;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: With regard to slaves,** the robber **says to** the owner: **That which is yours is before you. Certainly,** then, **according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir,** one **acquires** an item due to **a change** in the item, which is why the robber pays according to what its value had been at the time of the robbery. **But here,** in the case of the cow that gave birth or the ewe that was shorn, the payment of offspring or wool **is a penalty** with **which he penalizes** the robber.


###### Bava Kamma 95a:12
[Bava Kamma 95a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/95a:12)

כִּי קָא אִיבְּעִי לַן – הָכִי אִיבְּעִי לַן: כִּי קָא קָנֵיס – בְּמֵזִיד, אֲבָל בְּשׁוֹגֵג לָא קָנֵיס; אוֹ דִילְמָא אֲפִילּוּ בְּשׁוֹגֵג נָמֵי קָנֵיס?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues the alternative explanation. **When we asked** the question, **this is how we asked** it: **When** Rabbi Meir **penalizes** the robber, is it only for one who robbed **intentionally, but** if one took an item from its owner **unintentionally,** Rabbi Meir **does not penalize** the robber? **Or perhaps he penalizes even** one who took an item from its owner **unintentionally.**


###### Bava Kamma 95a:13
[Bava Kamma 95a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/95a:13)

תָּא שְׁמַע: חֲמִשָּׁה גּוֹבִין מִן הַמְחוֹרָרִין,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara tries to resolve this question: **Come** and **hear** a proof from a *baraita*: **Five** types of monetary claims **are collected** only **from unsold [*meḥorarin*]** property, i.e., property that is still in possession of its owner and has not been sold in the meantime.


###### Bava Kamma 95a:14
[Bava Kamma 95a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/95a:14)

וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: פֵּירוֹת, וּשְׁבַח פֵּירוֹת, וְהַמְקַבֵּל עָלָיו לָזוּן בֶּן אִשְׁתּוֹ וּבַת אִשְׁתּוֹ, וְגֵט חוֹב שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אַחְרָיוּת, וּכְתוּבַּת אִשָּׁה שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ אַחְרָיוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And these are they: Produce, and** the **enhanced** value of **produce.** Even if one has the right to the produce of a particular property, or the gain accrued from that produce, he cannot claim this payment from liened property. The Gemara continues with the list of monetary claims collected from unsold property: **And one who accepts upon himself** at the time of his betrothal the obligation **to provide sustenance for his wife’s son or his wife’s daughter** from a previous marriage; **and a promissory note that has no** property **guarantee,** i.e., a document that does not explicitly state that all of the properties of the debtor will serve to guarantee payment of the debt; **and** similarly, **a woman’s marriage contract that has no** property **guarantee.**


###### Bava Kamma 95a:15
[Bava Kamma 95a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/95a:15)

מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר: אַחְרָיוּת – לָאו טָעוּת סוֹפֵר הוּא? רַבִּי מֵאִיר; וְקָתָנֵי: פֵּירוֹת וּשְׁבַח פֵּירוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **Whom did you hear that says** that omission of the **guarantee** of the sale from the document **is not a scribal error?** It is **Rabbi Meir.** There is a dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis with regard to a promissory note that does not contain a property guarantee. According to the Rabbis, it was omitted in error and is always considered as having been written in the document. Rabbi Meir holds that a promissory note that does not contain a property guarantee cannot be used to collect property that has been liened or sold; it can be used to collect only unsold property. This *baraita* is therefore in accordance with Rabbi Meir’s opinion. **And** the *baraita* **teaches** that **produce and** the **enhanced** value of **produce** are collected only from unsold property.


###### Bava Kamma 95a:16
[Bava Kamma 95a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/95a:16)

שְׁבַח פֵּירוֹת הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? כְּגוֹן שֶׁגָּזַל שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ וּמְכָרָהּ לְאַחֵר, וְהִשְׁבִּיחָהּ, וַהֲרֵי הִיא יוֹצְאָה מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ. כְּשֶׁהוּא גּוֹבֶה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **What are the circumstances** in which he collects the **enhanced** value of **produce?** It is a case **where** one **robbed another** of **a field, and** then **sold it to another, and** the purchaser **enhanced it, and it is now leaving the possession** of the purchaser because the robbery victim has proved in court that this field is his. **When** the purchaser **collects** from the robber who sold him this field, in order to recoup what he had paid,