Bava Kamma 95a

בבא קמא צ״ה ע״א

Learn Bava Kamma 95a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Bava Kamma 95a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

תקנת השבים when the stolen item exists, and whether רבי מאיר's ruling on wool and offspring is a קנס (and whether it applies to a שוגג)

Overview

The גמרא first settles a contradiction between two ברייתות about accepting stolen property back from a robber who repents. If the stolen item still exists (גזילה קיימת), it is returned. If it is gone, תקנת השבים says the victim should not take payment. The גמרא tests this with the story of the belt (אבנט), which it reads as the belt's value. It also tests it with the stolen beam (מריש) built into a building, which the Sages treat as if it no longer exists. Then the גמרא turns to our משנה about a stolen pregnant cow and a ewe that was sheared. It brings a ברייתא with the views of רבי מאיר, רבי יהודה and רבי שמעון. It asks whether רבי מאיר makes the robber return the wool and offspring because a change does not transfer ownership, or because of a קנס. A proof from aged animals and slaves is rejected, but the case of the dyer who used the wrong color proves it is a קנס. A second version says this was always clear and asks instead whether the קנס also applies to a robber who acted by mistake (שוגג). The גמרא starts a proof from a ברייתא about claims collected only from unsold property, and that proof continues on the next עמוד.

Opening lines

The steps (22)

1. ResolutionTwo different cases: stolen item still exists or not
2. ChallengeChallenge from the story of the belt
3. ResolutionThe belt means the value of the belt
4. ChallengeChallenge from the stolen beam built into a building
5. ResolutionThe beam is treated as if it no longer exists
6. StatementQuoting the משנה: a stolen pregnant cow that gave birth
7. StatementThree views on paying for wool and offspring
8. QuestionWhat is רבי מאיר's reason?
9. QuestionWhat practical difference do the two reasons make?
10. ResponseThe difference: when the stolen item lost value
11. ProofBringing a משנה about stolen animals and slaves that grew old
12. ProofSo רבי מאיר holds that a change transfers ownership
13. Rejectionרבי מאיר was only arguing on the חכמים' terms
14. ProofA new proof from the dyer who used the wrong color
15. ProofThe dyer pays only for the plain wool, so the change made it his
16. ConclusionConclusion: רבי מאיר holds a change acquires, so returning wool and offspring is a fine
17. ProofAnother version: this was never in doubt, because רב reversed the opinions
18. QuestionThe real question: does רבי מאיר fine a robber who acted by mistake?
19. ProofA ברייתא listing five claims collected only from unsold property
20. ProofThis ברייתא follows רבי מאיר
21. QuestionWhat case is 'improvement of produce'?
22. ResponseA stolen field sold and then improved by the buyer