Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 11, scan section 4

the stolen article in money when it was robbed must always be considered. The schoolmen propounded a question: What is R. Meir's reason ? Does he hold that a change is never of any avail, or, in other cases, agree that a change gives title, but here it is only a fine which should be inflicted on the robber, and the difference (between the two suppositions would be) when the cow becomes thin (in the house of the robber) ? Come and hear: If one has given wool to dye it red, and it was dyed black, or vice versa, said R. Meir: He must pay him the value of the wool. Hence only the " value of the wool," but not for the increase ? Now, if R. Meir is of the opinion that a change does not give title, the value of the wool and the increase 2i6 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. should be paid ? Hence it is to be inferred that he holds that everywhere a change acquires title, and here is only a fine for the robber. According to others, the schoolmen did not pro- pound the above question, because Rabh has changed the names in the following Mishna. If one has stolen a cow or slaves, and they become old while under his control, he must pay according to their value when they were stolen. This is the decree of R. Meir. The sages, however, say as to slaves, he may say: " Yours is before you." Hence we see that, accord- ing to R. Meir, a change gives title, and here is only a fine, and if there was any question by the schoolmen it was this: Is the fine only for an intentional act or only for an unintentional ? Come and hear the Mishna mentioned above concerning the dyeing of wool, that he must pay only for the wool and not for the increase, because there was no intention, from which it is to be inferred that without intention there is no fine. " R. Jehudah said the stolen property," etc. What is the difference between R. Jehudah's and R. Simeon's statement ? Said R. Zbid: They differ when the increase is still in the stolen thing. According to R. Jehudah, it belongs to the one robbed, and according to R. Simeon to the robber. R. Papa said: Both agree that such an increase belongs to the robber (as even R. Jehudah meant only it should be returned as it was at the time it was stolen), and the case here held when it was customary in the country to take cattle for improvement for the reward of half, third, or a quarter. According to R. Simeon, the robber gets only the customary reward, but acording to R. Jehudah the whole improvement belongs to him. There is a Boraitha which states plainly as R. Papa explained. Said R. Ashi : When we were in the college of R. Kahana, we were in doubt regard- ing R. Simeon's theory as to the payment of half, etc., for im- provement, whether he shall be paid in money or with its meat ? Afterwards we concluded from R. Na'hman's statement in the name of Samuel that it means in money: There are three cases in which the increase is appraised and the payment is with money, and they are: A first-born pays the increase after the death of his father to the other brothers ; the same the creditor to the buyer, or to the heirs (for the increase after the time the estates were bought or after the death of the lender). Said Rabbina to R. Ashi : How could Samuel here state that the creditor must pay to the buyer for the increase ? Did he not say that the creditor collects even the increase ? And he anv TRACT BABA KAMA (THE FIRST GATE). 217 swered : This presents no difficulty, when we take into consid- eration that there is a difference between an increase which is not yet ripe (that in such a case a creditor collects it) and an increase which is already ripe for harvest (which a creditor can- not collect). He objected: But was it not a fact that Samuel's court collected every day even from crops that were ripe for harvest ? He answered: This also presents no difficulty when the claim is equal to the amount of the field together with the increase (then the creditor collects the increase also). When the claim is, however, only for the value of the estate (then the creditor must pay for the increase). Rejoined the former: This is right according to him who holds that even when the buyer has money he cannot pay the creditor with money ; but accord- ing to him who holds that when the buyer has money, he can pay the creditor with money (why is it stated that the creditor pays with money for the increase ?) why should not the buyer (have the right to) say: If I had money, I would make you leave the estate entirely. Now, when you take it for your debt, you have the right to take it for your debt only; but as for the increase, would it not be right to leave for me a part of the estate? And he answered: The case was when the field was hypothecated to the creditor, i.e., when the loan was issued, he told him: You have to collect your debt from this estate only. Rabha said : If one has stolen an article, and after improving it sells or bequeaths it, the sale or the bequest is valid for the improvement. He questioned, however, in case it was im- proved by the buyer. How is the law ? After he questioned it, he decided : What else, then, had the first sold to the other, if not every right that he might have in this estate (so that the buyer has the same share of the improvement as the seller himself). R. Papa said : He who stole a date tree and cut it down, did not acquire title, although he removed it to his own field. Why so ? Because it has even then the same name as before — date tree. It is the same if he cut it in pieces, for they are still called pieces of a date tree. If, however, he has stolen pieces and made beams of them, title is acquired; if he has stolen beams and made short ones of them, title is not acquired; but if he has made boards of them, title is acquired. Rabha said : If one stole a palm branch and has torn it in single leaves, title is acquired, because it is no more called palm. 2i8 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. but leaves; for the same reason, title is acquired when he has stolen leaves and made a broom of them. If, however, he has stolen a broom and made a rope, title is not acquired, because it can be taken apart and a broom again made of it. R. Papa questioned : If the double leaf of the same was divided (so that it cannot be restored), how is the law? Come and hear: R. Mathun said in the name of R. Jehoshua ben Levi: If the double leaf is divided, it is considered as if taken away, and it is invalid (for use of that day). Infer from this that such a change gives title. R. Papa said : " If one has stolen clay and made bricks of it, title is not acquired, because it can be reduced again to clay; conversely, however, title is acquired, because, even if he will again convert it into bricks, it will have another appearance and