## Bava Kamma Daf 96b

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

מַאי, לָאו הוּא הַדִּין לְנֶחְלְקָה? לָא; נִיטְּלָה שָׁאנֵי, דְּהָא חֲסַר לֵהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What, is it not** that **the same is true for** a case where the central twin-leaf **became split,** i.e., that this *lulav* has been rendered unfit to be used for the mitzva, and the robber has acquired the *lulav* as a result of this change? The Gemara answers: **No,** the case where it **was removed is different, as** the result is that **it is lacking,** and an incomplete *lulav* is certainly unfit. But if the leaf remains in place, albeit split, it does not necessarily render the *lulav* unfit. The *lulav* has not been changed and therefore the robber does not acquire it.


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

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי מָתוּן אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: נֶחְלְקָה הַתְּיוֹמֶת – נַעֲשָׂה כְּמִי שֶׁנִּטְּלָה, וּפָסוּל! שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**There are** those **who say** that the question was resolved as follows: **Come** and **hear that** which **Rabbi Matun says** that **Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says:** If **the** central **twin-leaf became split, it becomes like** a *lulav* whose central **twin-leaf was** completely **removed, and** it is **unfit.** If so, **learn from** his statement that if the central twin-leaf became split, the robber has acquired the *lulav* as a result of the change.


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

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הַאי מַאן דִּגְזַל עַפְרָא מֵחַבְרֵיהּ, וְעַבְדֵיהּ לְבֵינְתָּא – לָא קָנֵי. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּהָדַר מְשַׁוֵּי לֵיהּ עַפְרָא. לְבֵינְתָּא וְעַבְדַיהּ עַפְרָא – קָנֵי. מַאי אָמְרַתְּ – דִּלְמָא הָדַר וְעָבֵיד לֵיהּ לְבֵינְתָּא? הַאי לְבֵינְתָּא אַחֲרִיתִי הוּא, וּפָנִים חֲדָשׁוֹת בָּאוּ לְכָאן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Pappa said: This one who robbed another** of **earth and fashioned it** into **a brick has not acquired** it due to the change. **What is the reason** for this? It is **that he** can **return** it **and convert it** back into **earth.** By contrast, if he robbed another of **a brick, and** by crushing it **turned it** into **earth, he has acquired it** due to the change. **If you say: Perhaps** he will **return** it **and fashion it** into **a brick? This is a different brick, and a new entity has arrived,** i.e., entered into existence, **here.**


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

וְאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הַאי מַאן דִּגְזַל נְסָכָא מֵחַבְרֵיהּ, (וְעָבֵיד) [וְעַבְדֵיהּ] זוּזֵי – לָא קָנֵי. מַאי טַעְמָא? הָדַר עָבֵיד לְהוּ נְסָכָא. זוּזֵי וְעַבְדִינְהוּ נְסָכָא – קָנֵי. מַאי אָמְרַתְּ – הָדַר עָבֵיד לְהוּ זוּזֵי? פָּנִים חֲדָשׁוֹת בָּאוּ לְכָאן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Pappa** also **said: This one who robbed another** of **a bar of silver [*naskha*] and fashioned** it into **coins has not acquired it** due to the change. **What is the reason** for this? He can **return** it and by melting the coins **turn them** into **a bar of silver.** By contrast, if he robbed another of **coins and fashioned them** into **a bar of silver, he has acquired them** due to the change. **What do you say** in response to this, that perhaps he will **return and fashion them** into **coins?** These are new coins, and **a new entity has arrived here.**


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

שְׁחִימֵי וְעַבְדִינְהוּ חַדְתֵי – לָא קָנֵי. חַדְתֵי וְעַבְדִינְהוּ שְׁחִימֵי – קָנֵי. מַאי אָמְרַתְּ – הָדַר עָבֵיד לְהוּ חַדְתֵי? מִידָּע יְדִיעַ שִׁיחְמַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Pappa continues: If the stolen coins were **black [*sheḥimei*],** i.e., old and used, **and he made them** as **new** by cleaning them thoroughly, **he has not acquired** them. By contrast, if however, they were **new, and he made them black, he has acquired** them. **What do you say** in response to this, that perhaps he will **return** and **make them new** by cleaning them? **Their blackness is already known,** and therefore the coins have been changed irreversibly.


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

זֶה הַכְּלָל: כׇּל הַגַּזְלָנִין מְשַׁלְּמִין כִּשְׁעַת הַגְּזֵלָה. ״זֶה הַכְּלָל״ לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵתוֹיֵי הָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אִלְעָא: גָּנַב טָלֶה וְנַעֲשָׂה אַיִל, עֵגֶל וְנַעֲשָׂה שׁוֹר – נַעֲשָׂה שִׁינּוּי בְּיָדוֹ, וּקְנָאוֹ. טָבַח וּמָכַר – שֶׁלּוֹ הוּא טוֹבֵחַ, שֶׁלּוֹ הוּא מוֹכֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **This is the principle: All robbers pay according to** the value of the stolen item at **the time of the robbery.** The Gemara asks: **What is added** by the phrase: **This is the principle?** The Gemara replies: It serves **to add that which Rabbi Ela says:** If one **stole a lamb and** during the time that it was in the thief’s possession it **became a ram,** or if one stole **a calf and** it **became an ox,** then **a change occurred** while the animal was **in his possession, and he has acquired it** due to the change. If he then **slaughtered or sold** the animal, **he slaughters his own** animal **and he sells his own** animal, and he does not become liable to pay the penalty of four or five times the value of the animal.


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

הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דִּגְזַל פַּדָּנָא דְּתוֹרֵי מֵחַבְרֵיהּ, אֲזַל כְּרַב בְּהוּ כְּרָבָא, זְרַע בְּהוּ זַרְעָא. לְסוֹף אַהְדְּרִינְהוּ לְמָרֵיהּ. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן, אֲמַר לְהוּ: זִילוּ שׁוּמוּ שְׁבָחָא דְּאַשְׁבַּח.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: There was **a certain man who robbed another** of **a pair [*padna*] of oxen.** He then **went** and **plowed** his field **with them,** and **sowed seeds with them, and eventually returned them to their owner.** The robbery victim **came before Rav Naḥman** to claim payment from the robber. Rav Naḥman **said to** the robbery victim and the robber: **Go estimate** the amount by **which** the value of the land **was enhanced** during the time that the pair of oxen was in the possession of the robber, and the robber must pay that amount.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: תּוֹרֵי אַשְׁבֻּח, אַרְעָא לָא אַשְׁבַּח?! אָמַר: מִי קָאָמֵינָא נְשַׁיְּימוּ כּוּלֵּיהּ? פַּלְגָא קָאָמֵינָא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: סוֹף סוֹף, גְּזֵילָה הוּא – וְקָא הָדְרָה בְּעֵינַאּ, דִּתְנַן: כׇּל הַגַּזְלָנִין מְשַׁלְּמִין כִּשְׁעַת הַגְּזֵלָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said to** Rav Naḥman: Did **the oxen** alone **enhance** the value of the land? **Did the land not** become **enhanced** in and of itself? Perhaps not all of the enhanced value of the land was due to the labor performed by the oxen. Rav Naḥman **said: Did I say** that **they should estimate** and give him **all of** the enhanced value? **I said** only **half.** Rava **said to him: Ultimately, it is a stolen item and is returned as it was** at the time of the robbery, **as we learned** in a mishna: **All robbers pay according to** the value of the stolen item at **the time of the robbery.** Why should the robber also pay the owner half the value of the enhancement?


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא אָמֵינָא לָךְ, כִּי יָתֵיבְנָא בְּדִינָא לָא תֵּימָא לִי מִידֵּי, דְּאָמַר הוּנָא חַבְרִין עֲלַאי: ״אֲנָא וְשַׁבּוּר מַלְכָּא – אַחֵי בְּדִינָא״? הַאי אִינָשׁ גַּזְלָנָא עַתִּיקָא הוּא, וּבָעֵינָא דְּאֶיקְנְסֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Naḥman **said to** Rava: **Didn’t I tell you** that **when I am sitting in judgment, do not say anything to me,** i.e., do not question or comment upon my rulings. An indication that my rulings should not be questioned is **as our friend Huna has said about me,** that **King Shapur and I are brothers with regard to** monetary **laws,** i.e., with regard to monetary laws, my opinion is equal to that of Shmuel. **This man is an experienced robber, and I wish to penalize him.** Therefore, I compelled him to pay the enhanced value, although by right he is not obligated to do so.


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

**מַתְנִי׳** גָּזַל בְּהֵמָה וְהִזְקִינָה, עֲבָדִים וְהִזְקִינוּ – מְשַׁלֵּם כִּשְׁעַת הַגְּזֵלָה. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: בַּעֲבָדִים – אוֹמֵר לוֹ: ״הֲרֵי שֶׁלְּךָ לְפָנֶיךָ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If one **robbed** another of **an animal and it aged** while in his possession, consequently diminishing its value, or if one robbed another of Canaanite **slaves and they aged** while in his possession, they have been changed. The robber therefore **pays according to** the value of the stolen item at **the time of the robbery. Rabbi Meir says: With regard to** Canaanite **slaves, he says to** the robbery victim: **That which is yours is before you.**


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

גָּזַל מַטְבֵּעַ וְנִסְדַּק; פֵּירוֹת וְהִרְקִיבוּ; יַיִן וְהֶחְמִיץ – מְשַׁלֵּם כִּשְׁעַת הַגְּזֵלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If one **robbed** another of **a coin and it cracked,** thereby reducing its value; or if one robbed another of **produce and it rotted;** or if one robbed another of **wine and it fermented,** then **he pays according to** the value of the stolen item at **the time of the robbery.**


###### Bava Kamma 96b:12
[Bava Kamma 96b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/96b:12)

מַטְבֵּעַ וְנִפְסַל; תְּרוּמָה וְנִטְמֵאת; חָמֵץ וְעָבַר עָלָיו הַפֶּסַח; בְּהֵמָה וְנִתְעַבְּדָה בָּהּ עֲבֵירָה, אוֹ שֶׁנִּפְסְלָה מֵעַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה יוֹצְאָה לִיסָּקֵל – אוֹמֵר לוֹ: ״הֲרֵי שֶׁלְּךָ לְפָנֶיךָ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If he robbed another of **a coin and it was invalidated** by the government; or if he robbed another of ***teruma* and it became ritually impure;** or if he robbed another of **leavened bread and Passover elapsed over it,** and therefore it is prohibited to derive benefit from it; or if he robbed another of **an animal and a sin was performed with it,** thereby disqualifying it for use as an offering; **or if** the animal **was disqualified from** being sacrificed **upon the altar** for some other reason; **or** if the animal **was going out to be stoned** because it gored and killed a person at some point after the robbery, the robber **says to** the robbery victim: **That which is yours is before you.** In all of these cases, although the value of the stolen item has been diminished or altogether lost, since the change is not externally discernible, the robber returns the item in its current state.


###### Bava Kamma 96b:13
[Bava Kamma 96b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/96b:13)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לֹא ״הִזְקִינָה״ – הִזְקִינָה מַמָּשׁ, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ כָּחֲשָׁה. וְהָא אֲנַן ״הִזְקִינָה״ תְּנַן! כָּחֲשָׁה כְּגוֹן הִזְקִינָה, דְּלָא הָדְרָ[א] בָּרְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** With regard to the mishna’s statement that one who robbed another of an animal that aged pays what its value was at the time of the robbery, **Rav Pappa says:** It is **not** so that **aged** means that it **actually aged. But even** if the animal was **weakened,** which is a less significant change, it is still considered changed, and the robber has acquired the animal. The Gemara asks: **But didn’t we learn** in the mishna that it **aged,** indicating that a lesser change, e.g., weakening, is not significant? The Gemara responds: Rav Pappa was speaking of **weakening** that is **like aging,** i.e., the animal became so weak **that** it **will not return** to its former **health.**


###### Bava Kamma 96b:14
[Bava Kamma 96b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/96b:14)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ מָר קַשִּׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא לְרַב אָשֵׁי, הָכִי קָאָמְרִי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֲפִילּוּ גָּנַב טָלֶה וְנַעֲשָׂה אַיִל, עֵגֶל וְנַעֲשָׂה שׁוֹר – נַעֲשָׂה שִׁינּוּי בְּיָדוֹ, וּקְנָאוֹ. טָבַח וּמָכַר – שֶׁלּוֹ הוּא טוֹבֵחַ, שֶׁלּוֹ הוּא מוֹכֵר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ, לָאו אָמֵינָא לָךְ: לָא תַּחְלֵיף גַּבְרֵי? הָהוּא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אִלְעָא אִיתְּמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Mar Kashisha, son of Rav Ḥisda, said to Rav Ashi: This is what they say in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Even if one stole a lamb and** it **became a ram,** or **a calf and** it **became an ox,** it is considered that **a change occurred** while the animal was **in** the robber’s **possession, and he has acquired it** due to this change. If he then **slaughtered or sold** the animal, **he slaughters his own** animal **and he sells his own** animal, and he does not become liable to pay the penalty of four or five times the value of the animal. Rav Ashi **said to him: Didn’t I say to you: Do not exchange** the names of the **men** in whose name you are transmitting words of Torah? **That** statement **was stated in the name of Rabbi Ela,** not in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan.


###### Bava Kamma 96b:15
[Bava Kamma 96b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/96b:15)

רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, בַּעֲבָדִים אוֹמֵר לוֹ: ״הֲרֵי שֶׁלְּךָ לְפָנֶיךָ״. אָמַר רַב חֲנִינָא בַּר אַבְדִּימִי אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר. וְרַב שָׁבֵיק רַבָּנַן וְעָבֵיד כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר? אָמְרִי: מִשּׁוּם דְּבָרַיְיתָא אִיפְּכָא תָּנְיָא. וְרַב שָׁבֵיק מַתְנִיתִין וְעָבֵיד כְּבָרַיְיתָא? רַב – מַתְנִיתִין נָמֵי אִיפְּכָא תָּנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that **Rabbi Meir says: With regard to** Canaanite **slaves, he says to** the robbery victim: **That which is yours is before you.** The Gemara comments: **Rav Ḥanina bar Avdimi says** that **Rav says:** The ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir.** The Gemara asks: **And** would **Rav set aside** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who are the majority, **and practice** the *halakha* **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir?** The Sages **say:** It is **because it is taught** in **a *baraita*** in the **opposite** manner, i.e., with the opinions reversed, so that the Rabbis, rather than Rabbi Meir, hold that with regard to slaves the robber says: That which is yours is before you. The Gemara asks: **And** would **Rav set aside the mishna and practice** the *halakha* **in accordance with** the statement of **the *baraita*?** The Gemara responds: **Rav also teaches the mishna** in the **opposite** manner.


###### Bava Kamma 96b:16
[Bava Kamma 96b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/96b:16)

וּמַאי טַעְמֵיהּ דְּרַב דְּאָפֵיךְ מַתְנִיתִין מִקַּמֵּי דְּבָרַיְיתָא? אַדְּרַבָּה, נֵיפוֹךְ לְבָרַיְיתָא מִקַּמֵּי מַתְנִיתִין! אָמְרִי: רַב נָמֵי מַתְנִיתִין אִיפְּכָא אַתְנוּיָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And what is the reasoning of Rav, who reversed** the opinions in **the mishna in light of the *baraita*? On the contrary, let him reverse** the opinions in **the *baraita* in light of the mishna.** The Sages **say** in response: **Rav also learned the mishna** in the **opposite** manner. Rav did not decide to reverse the opinions in the mishna. In the text of the mishna that he utilized, the opinions were the same as in the *baraita*.


###### Bava Kamma 96b:17
[Bava Kamma 96b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/96b:17)

וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: כִּי לָא אָפֵיךְ – חֲדָא מִקַּמֵּי חֲדָא; חֲדָא מִקַּמֵּי תַּרְתֵּי – אָפֵיךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead that Rav did in fact decide to reverse the opinions in the mishna, based upon the principle: **When he does not reverse** a mishna due to a *baraita*, it is when there is **one** mishna that he will not reverse **in light of one** *baraita*. But **he would reverse one** mishna **in light of two** *baraitot*, and in this case there is a second *baraita* in which the opinions are the reverse of those found in the mishna.


###### Bava Kamma 96b:18
[Bava Kamma 96b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/96b:18)

דְּתַנְיָא: הַמַּחְלִיף פָּרָה בַּחֲמוֹר, וְיָלְדָה; וְכֵן הַמּוֹכֵר שִׁפְחָתוֹ, וְיָלְדָה; זֶה אוֹמֵר ״בִּרְשׁוּתִי יָלְדָה״, וְהַלָּה שׁוֹתֵק – זָכָה בָּהּ. זֶה אוֹמֵר ״אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ״, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר ״אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ״ – יַחְלוֹקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The second *baraita* is **as it is taught** in the *Tosefta* (*Bava Metzia* 8:23–24): In the case of **one who exchanges a cow for a donkey, and** in the meantime the cow **gave birth; and similarly,** in the case of **one who sells his** Canaanite **maidservant, and** in the meantime **she gave birth,** if in either of these cases the purchaser and seller have a dispute as to when the birth took place, where **this** one **says: She gave birth** at the time that she was **in my possession** and therefore the offspring is mine, **and the other is silent,** then the one who stated definitively that she gave birth while in his possession **has acquired** the offspring. If **this** one **says: I do not know, and that** one **says: I do not know,** then **they shall divide** the value of the offspring.


###### Bava Kamma 96b:19
[Bava Kamma 96b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/96b:19)

זֶה אוֹמֵר ״בִּרְשׁוּתִי״ וְזֶה אוֹמֵר ״בִּרְשׁוּתִי״ – יִשָּׁבַע הַמּוֹכֵר שֶׁבִּרְשׁוּתוֹ יָלְדָה, לְפִי שֶׁכׇּל הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה – נִשְׁבָּעִין וְלֹא מְשַׁלְּמִין; דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: If **this** one **says:** She gave birth while **in my possession, and that** one **says:** She gave birth while **in my possession,** then **the seller must take an oath that she gave birth** while **in his possession, as anyone who** is obligated to **take an oath that is** enumerated **in the Torah takes an oath and does not pay;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir.** In this case, since the seller initially had possession of the animal or the maidservant, he is considered the defendant, and therefore it is sufficient for him to take an oath to exempt himself from payment and maintain possession of the offspring.


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

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין לֹא עַל הָעֲבָדִים וְלֹא עַל הַקַּרְקָעוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **And the Rabbis say** that **one does not take an oath concerning either** Canaanite **slaves or concerning land.** This indicates that according to the opinion of the Rabbis, Canaanite slaves have the legal status of land, whereas according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, they do not. It follows, then, that in the mishna here as well, it is the Rabbis, and not Rabbi Meir, who maintain that, with regard to slaves, one says: That which is yours is before you, as one does with regard to land.


###### Bava Kamma 96b:21
[Bava Kamma 96b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/96b:21)

הַאי ״הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר״?! ״הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּנַן״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! הָכִי קָאָמַר: לְמַאי דְּאָפְכִיתוּ וְתָנֵיתוּ, הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If it is true that the opinion that the mishna attributed to Rabbi Meir was attributed by Rav to the Rabbis, then **this** phrase: The ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir,** is imprecise. Rav **should have** said that the ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis.** The Gemara responds: **This is** what Rav **is saying: According to** the way **that you have reversed** the opinions in the mishna, **and you taught** that Rabbi Meir says that the robber says to the robbery victim: That which is yours is before you, then the ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir,** despite the fact that according to Rav, this is the opinion of the Rabbis.