## Bava Kamma Daf 96a

###### Bava Kamma 96a:1
[Bava Kamma 96a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/96a:1)

הָא דְּמַסֵּיק בֵּיהּ כְּשִׁיעוּר אַרְעָא וּשְׁבָחָא, הָא דְּלָא מַסֵּיק בֵּיהּ אֶלָּא כְּשִׁיעוּר אַרְעָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**This** ruling, that Shmuel would collect the enhanced value, is for a case **where** the creditor **is owed by** the debtor **the amount of** the value of **the land and the enhanced value. That** ruling, that Shmuel would not collect the value of the enhancement, is for a case where the creditor **is owed by** the debtor **only the amount of** the value of **the land.**


###### Bava Kamma 96a:2
[Bava Kamma 96a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/96a:2)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ, הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: אִי אִית לֵיהּ זוּזֵי לְלוֹקֵחַ – לָא מָצֵי מְסַלֵּק לֵיהּ לְבַעַל חוֹב, שַׁפִּיר. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: אִי אִית לֵיהּ זוּזֵי לְלוֹקֵחַ – מָצֵי מְסַלֵּק לֵיהּ לְבַעַל חוֹב, לֵימָא לֵיהּ: אִי הֲווֹ לִי זוּזֵי – הֲוָה מְסַלֵּיקְנָא לָךְ מִכּוּלֵּיהּ אַרְעָא, הַשְׁתָּא – הַב לִי גְּרִיוָא דְאַרְעָא שִׁיעוּר שְׁבָחַאי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Ravina **said to him: This works out well according to the one who says: If the purchaser** of the field **has money, he** still **cannot remove the creditor** from the land, i.e., the creditor has the right to collect the land. This is **well. But according to the one who says: If the purchaser** of the field **has money, he can remove the creditor** from the land, i.e., the purchaser can choose to pay him money instead, **let** the purchaser **say: If I had money, I would remove you from all of the land; now** that I do not have sufficient money to pay what you are owed, **give me** at least **a *se’a* [*griva*] of land,** which is **the amount of my enhancement.**


###### Bava Kamma 96a:3
[Bava Kamma 96a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/96a:3)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן דְּשַׁוְּיַהּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ אַפּוֹתֵיקֵי, דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: לֹא יְהֵא לְךָ פֵּרָעוֹן אֶלָּא מִזֶּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ashi **said to him: With what are we dealing here?** We are dealing with a case **where** the debtor **set aside** this field as **designated repayment for him, as he said to him: You shall not be repaid from anything but this,** in which case he clearly has a lien on this field and nothing else.


###### Bava Kamma 96a:4
[Bava Kamma 96a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/96a:4)

אָמַר רָבָא: גָּזַל וְהִשְׁבִּיחַ וּמָכַר, וְגָזַל וְהִשְׁבִּיחַ וְהוֹרִישׁ – מַה שֶּׁהִשְׁבִּיחַ מָכַר, מַה שֶּׁהִשְׁבִּיחַ הוֹרִישׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara continues the discussion of a stolen item that has been enhanced. **Rava says:** If one **robbed** another of an item **and enhanced** it **and sold** it to another, **and** similarly, if one **robbed** another of an item **and enhanced** it and then died **and bequeathed** it, **he sold that which he enhanced and bequeathed that which he enhanced.** And the robbery victim, should he wish to recover the stolen item, must pay the purchaser or heir for the enhanced value.


###### Bava Kamma 96a:5
[Bava Kamma 96a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/96a:5)

בָּעֵי רָבָא: הִשְׁבִּיחַ לוֹקֵחַ, מַהוּ? בָּתַר דְּבַעְיַהּ, הֲדַר פַּשְׁטַהּ: מָה מָכַר רִאשׁוֹן לַשֵּׁנִי? כׇּל זְכוּת שֶׁתָּבֹא לְיָדוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raises a dilemma** related to the aforementioned *halakha*: **What is** the *halakha* if **a purchaser enhanced** the stolen item? Must the robbery victim pay the purchaser for the enhanced value or not? **After** Rava **raised the dilemma, he then resolved it: What has the first** person **sold to the second** in any sale? He has sold **any rights that will come into his possession.** Since the robber had the rights to the value of his enhancements to the stolen item, he sold those rights to the purchaser as well.


###### Bava Kamma 96a:6
[Bava Kamma 96a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/96a:6)

בָּעֵי רָבָא: הִשְׁבִּיחַ גּוֹי, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא מִדִּפְתִּי לְרָבִינָא: תַּקַּנְתָּא לְגוֹי נֵיקוּ וְנַעְבֵּיד?! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא צְרִיכָא, כְּגוֹן דְּזַבְּנֵיהּ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל. סוֹף סוֹף, הַבָּא מֵחֲמַת גּוֹי הֲרֵי הוּא כְּגוֹי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raises a dilemma: What is** the *halakha* if **a gentile** robber **enhanced** the value of a stolen item? **Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina: Shall we arise and institute an ordinance for** the benefit of **a gentile?** Ravina **said to him:** This question **is not necessary** except **where** it was the case **that** a gentile **sold it to a Jew.** Rava was asking if the Jew needs to return the enhanced value. The Gemara comments: **Ultimately, one who comes** to possess an item **due to** purchasing it from **a gentile is like a gentile** himself because, as stated previously, in any sale the purchaser’s rights are identical to the seller’s. Since the Sages did not institute ordinances for the benefit of gentiles, the Jewish purchaser does not have those rights either.


###### Bava Kamma 96a:7
[Bava Kamma 96a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/96a:7)

לָא צְרִיכָא, כְּגוֹן דְּגַזְלַ[הּ] יִשְׂרָאֵל וְזַבְּנַהּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ, וְהִשְׁבִּיחָהּ גּוֹי, וַהֲדַר גּוֹי וְזַבְּנַהּ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל. מַאי? מִי אָמְרִינַן כֵּיוָן דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא יִשְׂרָאֵל וַהֲדַר יִשְׂרָאֵל – עָבְדִי רַבָּנַן תַּקַּנְתָּא, אוֹ דִלְמָא כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא גּוֹי בָּאֶמְצַע – לָא עֲבַדוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן תַּקַּנְתָּא? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: This question **is not necessary** except **where** it was the case **that a Jew robbed** another of the item **and sold it to** a gentile, **and the gentile enhanced it, and** then the **gentile went back and sold it to** another **Jew. What** is the *halakha* in this case? **Do we say: Since it was initially** stolen by **a Jew and** was **then** acquired by **a Jew, the Sages did institute an ordinance? Or, perhaps since there is** the ownership of **a gentile intervening, the Sages did not institute an ordinance.** The Gemara comments: The dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Bava Kamma 96a:8
[Bava Kamma 96a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/96a:8)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הַאי מַאן דִּגְזַל דִּיקְלָא מֵחַבְרֵיהּ וְקַטְלֵיהּ, אַף עַל גַּב דְּשַׁדְיֵאּ מֵאַרְעָא לְאַרְעָא דִּידֵיהּ, לָא קְנֵי. מַאי טַעְמָא? מֵעִיקָּרָא ״דִּיקְלָא״ מִיקְּרֵי, וְהַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי ״דִּיקְלָא״ מִיקְּרֵי. דִּיקְלָא (וַעֲבֵיד) [וְעַבְדֵיהּ] גּוּבֵּי, לָא קָנֵי. הַשְׁתָּא מִיהַת ״גּוּבֵּי דְּדִיקְלָא״ מִיקְּרֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that if one robbed another of wood and fashioned it into vessels, he acquired the wood due to the change. The Gemara discusses what qualifies as a change. **Rav Pappa said:** With regard to **this one who robbed another of a palm tree and cut it** down, **although he threw it from the land** of the robbery victim **to his own land,** he **did not acquire** it. **What is the reason** for this? The tree was **initially called a palm tree, and now,** although it has been cut down, **it is also called a palm tree,** so the change to the item is not sufficiently significant for the robber to acquire it. Moreover, if one robbed another of **a palm tree and made** it into **logs, he did not acquire it,** since **now, in any event, they are called palm tree logs.**


###### Bava Kamma 96a:9
[Bava Kamma 96a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/96a:9)

גּוּבֵּי וְעַבְדִינְהוּ כְּשׁוּרֵי – קָנֵי. כְּשׁוּרֵי רַבְרְבֵי וְעַבְדִינְהוּ כְּשׁוּרֵי זוּטְרֵי – לָא קָנֵי. עַבְדִינְהוּ קְצוּצְיָיתָא – קָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
By contrast, if one robbed another of **logs and fashioned them** into **beams, he has acquired** them, since this change is significant. If one robbed another of **large beams and fashioned them** into **small beams, he did not acquire them,** since they are still called beams. If he **fashioned them** into **boards, he did acquire** them.


###### Bava Kamma 96a:10
[Bava Kamma 96a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/96a:10)

אָמַר רָבָא: הַאי מַאן דִּגְזַל לוּלִיבָּא וְעַבְדִינְהוּ הוּצֵי – קָנֵי. דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא ״לוּלִיבָּא״ מִיקְּרֵי, וְהַשְׁתָּא ״הוּצֵי״. הוּצֵי וְעַבְדִינְהוּ חוּפְיָא – קָנֵי. מֵעִיקָּרָא ״הוּצֵי״, וְהַשְׁתָּא ״חוּפְיָא״. חוּפְיָא וְעַבְדֵיהּ שַׁרְשׁוּרָא – לָא קָנֵי. מַאי טַעְמָא? דַּהֲדַר סָתַר לֵיהּ וְהָוֵי חוּפְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: This one who robbed** another of **a palm frond and fashioned it** into **leaves [*hutzei*],** i.e., he removed the leaves from the spine, **has acquired** it, **since initially it was called a palm frond and now** it is called **leaves.** One who robbed another of **leaves and fashioned them** into **a broom has acquired them,** since **initially** they were called **leaves, and now** they are called **a broom.** One who robbed another of **a broom** and **fashioned it** into **a rope has not acquired it. What is the reason** for this? The reason is **that** he can **go back** and **unravel it, and it will** once again **be a broom.**


###### Bava Kamma 96a:11
[Bava Kamma 96a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/96a:11)

בָּעֵי רַב פָּפָּא: נֶחְלְקָה הַתְּיוֹמֶת, מַהוּ? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי מָתוּן אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: נִיטְּלָה הַתְּיוֹמֶת – פָּסוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa raises a dilemma: What is** the *halakha* if **the** central **twin-leaf became split,** i.e., is this considered a change through which a stolen *lulav* would be acquired? The Gemara cites a proof: **Come** and **hear that** which **Rabbi Matun says** that **Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says:** If **the** central **twin-leaf was removed,** the *lulav* **is unfit.**