Bava Kamma — Daf 11b

דיש מקצת שליא בלא ולד וגזירה מקצתה אטו כולה קמ"ל

ואמר עולא אמר רבי אלעזר בכור שנטרף בתוך ל' יום אין פודין אותו

וכן תני רמי בר חמא מתוך שנאמר (במדבר יח, טו) פדה תפדה יכול אפי' נטרף בתוך ל' יום ת"ל אך חלק

ואמר עולא א"ר אלעזר בהמה גסה נקנית במשיכה

והא אנן תנן במסירה הוא דאמר כי האי תנא דתניא וחכ"א זו וזו במשיכה ר"ש אומר זו וזו בהגבהה

ואמר עולא אמר ר' אלעזר האחין שחלקו מה שעליהן שמין ומה שעל בניהן ובנותיהן אין שמין

אמר רב פפא פעמים אף מה שעליהן אין שמין משכחת לה בגדול אחי דניחא להו דלשתמעון מיליה

ואמר עולא א"ר אלעזר שומר שמסר לשומר פטור ולא מיבעיא שומר חנם שמסר לשומר שכר דעלויי עלייה לשמירתו אלא אפילו שומר שכר שמסר לשומר חנם דהשתא גרועי גרעיה לשמירתו נמי פטור שהרי מסר לבן דעת

רבא אמר שומר שמסר לשומר חייב ולא מיבעיא שומר שכר שמסר לשומר חנם דגרועי גרעיה לשמירתו אלא אפילו שומר חנם שמסר לשומר שכר חייב

דאמר ליה את מהימנת לי בשבועה האי לא מהימן לי בשבועה

ואמר עולא א"ר אלעזר הלכתא גובין מן העבדים

אמר ליה ר"נ לעולא אמר רבי אלעזר אפי' מיתמי לא מיניה מיניה אפי' מגלימא דעל כתפיה

הכא במאי עסקינן שעשאו אפותיקי כדרבא דאמר רבא עשה עבדו אפותיקי ומכרו בעל חוב גובה הימנו שורו אפותיקי ומכרו אין ב"ח גובה הימנו

מ"ט הא אית ליה קלא והא לית ליה קלא

that it is quite possible for a part of a placenta to emerge without a fetus, but that owing to a [Rabbinic] decree a part of a placenta is in practice treated like the whole of it;  it is therefore made known to us  that this is not the case. 'Ulla further said on behalf of R. Eleazar: A first-born son who has been killed within thirty days [of his birth] need not be redeemed.  The same has been taught by Rami b. Hama: From the verse, Shalt thou surely redeem  one might infer that this would apply even when the firstborn was killed within thirty days [of his birth]; there is therefore inserted the term 'but'  to exclude it. 'Ulla further said on behalf of R. Eleazar: [Title to] large cattle is acquired by 'pulling'.  But did we not learn, … by 'delivery'?  — He  follows another Tanna; for it has been taught:  The Rabbis say: Both one and the other  [are acquired] by 'pulling'. R. Simeon says: Both one and the other by 'lifting up'. 'Ulla further said on behalf of R. Eleazar: In the case of heirs  who are about to divide the estate among themselves, whatever is worn by them will [also] be assessed [and taken into account], but that which is worn by their sons and daughters is not assessed [and not taken into account].  R. Papa said: There are circumstances when even that which is worn by the heirs themselves is not assessed. This exception applies to the eldest of the heirs,  as it is in the interest of them all that his words should be respected. 'Ulla further said on behalf of R. Eleazar: One bailee handing over his charge to another bailee does not incur thereby any liability.  This ruling unquestionably applies to an unpaid bailee handing over his charge to a paid bailee in which case there is a definite improvement in the care; but even when a paid bailee hands over his charge to an unpaid bailee where there is definitely a decrease in the care, still he thereby incurs no liability, since he transfers his charge to a responsible person. Raba, however, said: One bailee handing over his charge to another bailee becomes liable for all consequences. This ruling unquestionably holds good in the case of a paid bailee handing over his charge to an unpaid bailee where there is a definite decrease in the care; but even when an unpaid bailee hands over his charge to a paid bailee, where there is definitely an improvement in the care, still he becomes liable for all consequences, as the depositor may say [to the original bailee]: You would be trusted by me [should occasion demand] an oath [from you], but your substitute would not be trusted by me in the oath [which he may be required to take]. 'Ulla further said on behalf of R. Eleazar: The law is that distraint may be made on slaves.  Said R. Nahman to 'Ulla: Did R. Eleazar apply this statement even in the case of heirs  [of the debtor]? — No, Only to the debtor himself. To the debtor himself? Could not a debt be collected even from the cloak upon his shoulder?  — We are dealing here with a case where a slave was mortgaged,  as in the case stated by Raba, for Raba said:  Where a debtor mortgaged his slave and then sold him [to another person], the creditor may distrain on him [in the hands of the purchaser]. But where an ox was mortgaged and afterwards sold, the creditor cannot distrain on it [in the hands of the purchaser], the reason [for the distinction] being that in the former case the transaction of the mortgage aroused public interest  whereas in the latter case no public interest was aroused.