Bava Kamma - Daf 97
- One who seizes someone’s slave and uses him for work
Rav ruled that a slave is considered like land, and cannot be considered stolen. This contradicts another ruling of Rav’s: התוקף בעבדו של חבירו ועשה בו מלאכה פטור – one who seizes his fellow’s slave and did work with him is exempt from paying for his use. If a slave cannot be legally stolen, and remains in the master’s domain, he should pay for its work (whereas if it can be stolen, he merely returns it as is)!? The Gemara answers that he worked שלא בשעת מלאכה – not at the time of the master’s work, so the master suffered no loss. This is like one who lives in someone’s courtyard without his knowledge, where he is exempt from paying rent. The Gemara asks that the above exemption is unique to a dwelling, where the owner benefits from someone living there (because an inhabited house is tended to, or because inhabiting it keeps destructive demons away), but why would the master agree to weakening his slave with additional labor? It answers that he benefits from his slave not becoming accustomed to leisure.
- גזל מטבע ונסדק vs. נפסל
The Mishnah on the previous Daf taught that if one stole a coin ונסדק – and it cracked, he must pay its initial value. But if נפסל – it became disqualified, he may return it to the owner as is. Rav Huna interprets “cracked” literally (whereby the גזלן acquires it with שינוי), and “disqualified” means פסלתו מלכות – the government disqualified it. Rav Yehudah says that if the government disqualified it, it is tantamount to being cracked, and the גזלן pays its initial value. Rather, “disqualified” means that one province no longer accepts it as currency, but another does. Rav Chisda challenged Rav Huna from the Mishnah, which taught that stolen fruit which rotted or wine which soured, which are similar to a government-disqualified coin, must be paid for (and not returned)!? He answered: התם נשתנה טעמו וריחו – there, its taste and smell have changed, so the גזלן acquires them, whereas this coin is not physically changed. Rabbah challenged Rav Yehudah from the Mishnah, which taught that terumah which became tamei (and is similar to a government-disqualified coin) may be returned to the owner, despite being useless!? He answered that the damage of tamei terumah is indiscernible, whereas הכא מינכר היזיקה – here, the damage is discernible, because the coin is recognized as invalid.
- A loan with payment fixed on a coin, and the coin is disqualified, or added to
If someone lends his friend and fixes payment on a coin, and the coin became disqualified, Rav says: נותן לו מטבע היוצא באותה שעה – he must give him a coin that passes as currency at that time of payment, since he agreed to pay with currency. Shmuel says: יכול לומר לו לך הוציאו במישן – he may pay with the original currency and tell [the lender], “Go and spend it in Meishan,” where it is still accepted. Rav Nachman reasons that Shmuel’s ruling is only where the lender is going anyway to Meishan. This is challenged from the laws of chilul maaser sheni, and Shmuel’s case is further clarified as where the governments forbid people to hold other currencies, but it can be transported to Meishan with difficulty, because people are not searched for foreign currency. But if he is not going there, he cannot use it as currency for travelers from Meishan, for fear of being caught. Rav Chisda told Rava that if the authorities added to the coin (increasing its requisite silver content), he still pays with the same number of coins, even if they are now as large as a quarter-kav. The Gemara proceeds to discuss where deductions must be made to avoid רבית, either from its increased buying power, or its increased silver content.
