Bava Kamma — Daf 97a

ומי אמר רב עבדא כמקרקעי דמי והאמר רב דניאל בר רב קטינא אמר רב התוקף בעבדו של חבירו ועשה בו מלאכה פטור ואי ס"ד עבדא כמקרקעי דמי אמאי פטור ברשותא דמריה קאי

הכא במאי עסקינן שלא בשעת מלאכה כי הא דשלח ליה רבי אבא למרי בר מר בעי מיניה מרב הונא הדר בחצר חבירו שלא מדעתו צריך להעלות לו שכר או אין צריך להעלות לו שכר ושלחו ליה אינו צריך להעלות לו שכר

הכי השתא בשלמא התם בין למ"ד ביתא מיתבא יתיב ניחא ליה בין למ"ד (ישעיהו כד, יב) ושאיה יוכת שער ניחא ליה

אלא הכא מי ניחא ליה דנכחוש עבדיה אמרי ה"נ ניחא ליה דלא ליסתרי עבדיה

בי רב יוסף בר חמא הוו תקיף עבדי דאינשי דמסיק בהו זוזי ועבדי בהו מלאכה א"ל רבה בריה מ"ט עביד מר הכי א"ל דאמר רב נחמן עבדא נהום כריסיה לא שוי אמר ליה אימא דאמר רב נחמן כגון דארו עבדיה דמרקיד בי כובי כולהו עבדי מעבד עבדי

א"ל אנא כרב דניאל סבירא לי דאמר רב דניאל בר רב קטינא אמר רב התוקף בעבדו של חבירו ועשה בו מלאכה פטור אלמא ניחא ליה דלא ליסתרי עבדיה

אמר ליה הני מילי היכא דלא מסיק בהו זוזי מר כיון דמסיק בהו זוזי מיחזי כרבית דאמר רב יוסף בר מניומי אמר רב נחמן אף על פי שאמרו הדר בחצר חבירו שלא מדעתו א"צ להעלות לו שכר הלוהו ודר בחצר חבירו צריך להעלות לו שכר א"ל הדרי בי:

איתמר התוקף ספינתו של חבירו ועשה בה מלאכה אמר רב רצה שכרה נוטל רצה פחתה נוטל ושמואל אמר אינו נוטל אלא פחתה

אמר רב פפא לא פליגי הא דעבידא לאגרא הא דלא עבידא לאגרא ואיבעית אימא הא והא דעבידא לאגרא הא דנחית ליה אדעתא דאגרא והא דנחית ליה אדעתא דגזלנותא:

גזל מטבע ונסדק [וכו']: אמר רב הונא נסדק נסדק ממש נפסל פסלתו מלכות

ורב יהודה אמר פסלתו מלכות נמי היינו נסדק אלא ה"ד נפסל שפסלתו מדינה זו ויוצאה במדינה אחרת

א"ל רב חסדא לרב הונא לדידך דאמרת נפסל פסלתו מלכות הרי פירות והרקיבו יין והחמיץ דכי פסלתו מלכות דמי וקתני משלם כשעת הגזילה

א"ל התם נשתנה טעמו וריחו הכא לא נשתנה

א"ל רבא לרב יהודה לדידך דאמרת פסלתו מלכות נמי היינו נסדק הרי תרומה ונטמאת דכי פסלתו מלכות דמי וקתני אומר לו הרי שלך לפניך

א"ל התם לא מינכר היזיקה הכא מינכר היזיקה

איתמר המלוה את חבירו על המטבע ונפסלה המטבע רב אמר

But did Rab really say that slaves are on the same footing as real property? Did R. Daniel b. Kattina not say that Rab stated that if a man forcibly seizes another's slave and makes him perform some work, he would be exempt from any payment?  Now, if you really suppose that slaves are on the same footing as real property. why should he be exempt? Should the slave not be considered as still being in the possession of the owner?  — We are dealing there  with a case [where he took hold of the slave at a time] when [the owner] usually required no work from him, exactly as R. Abba sent to Mari b. Mar, saying. 'Ask R. Huna whether a person who stays in the premises  of another without his knowledge must pay him rent or not, and he sent him back reply that 'he is not liable to pay him rent'.  But what comparison is there? There is no difficulty [in that case]  as if we follow the view that premises which are inhabited by tenants keep in a better condition,  [we must say that] the owner is well pleased that his house be inhabited. or again if we follow the view  that the gate is smitten unto roll,  [we can again say that] the owner benefited by it. But here [in this case]  what owner could be said to be pleased that his slave became reduced [by overwork]? — It may, however, be said that here  also it may be beneficial to the owner that his slave should not become prone to idleness. Some at the house of R. Joseph b. Hama used to seize slaves of people who owed them money, and make them perform some work. Raba his son said to him: Why do you, Sir, allow this to be done? — He thereupon said to him: Because R. Nahman stated that the [work of the] slave is not worth the bread he eats. He rejoined:  Do we not say that R. Nahman meant his statement only to apply to one like Daru his own servant who was a notorious dancer in the wine houses, whereas with all other servants who do some work [the case is not so]? — He however said to him: I hold with R. Daniel b. Kattina, for R. Daniel b. Kattina said that Rab stated that one who forcibly seizes another's slave and makes him perform some work would be exempt from any payment, thus proving that this is beneficial to the owner, by preventing his slave from becoming idle. He replied:  These rulings [could apply] only where he has no money claim against the owner, but [in your case], Sir, since you have a money claim against the owner, it looks like usury, exactly as R. Joseph b. Manyumi said [namely] that R. Nahman stated that though the Rabbis decided that one who occupies another's premises without his consent is not liable to pay him rent, if he lent money to another and then occupied his premises he would have to pay him rent.  He thereupon said to him: [If so,] I withdraw. It was stated: If one forcibly seizes another's ship and performs some work with it, Rab said that if the owner wishes he may demand payment for its hire, or if he wishes he may demand payment for its wear and tear. But Samuel said: He may demand only for its wear and tear. Said R. Papa: They do not differ as Rab referred to the case where the ship was made for hire and Samuel to the case where it was not made for hire. Or if you like, I can say that both statements deal with a case where it was made for hire, but whereas [Rab deals with a case] where possession was taken of it with the intention of paying the hire,  '[Samuel refers to one] where possession was taken of it with the intention of robbery. IF HE MISAPPROPRIATED A COIN AND IT BECAME CRACKED etc. R. Huna said: IT BECAME CRACKED means that it actually cracked, [and] IT WENT OUT OF USE means that the Government declared it obsolete. But Rab Judah said that where the Government declared the coin obsolete it would be tantamount to its being disfigured,  and what was meant by IT WENT OUT OF USE is that the inhabitants of a particular province rejected it while it was still in circulation in another province. R. Hisda said to R. Huna: According to your statement that IT WENT OUT OF USE meant that the Government declared it obsolete, why [in our Mishnah] in the case of fruits that became stale, or wine that became sour, which appears to be equivalent to a coin that was declared obsolete by the Government, is it stated that HE WOULD HAVE TO PAY IN ACCORDANCE WITH [THE VALUE AT] THE TIME OF THE ROBBERY?  — He replied: There [in the case of the fruits and the wine] the taste and the smell changed, whereas here [in the case of the coin] there was no change [in the substance]. Rabbah on the other hand said to Rab Judah: According to your statement that where the Government declared the coin obsolete it would be tantamount to its having been cracked, why in [our Mishnah in] the case of terumah that became defiled, which appears to resemble a coin that was declared obsolete by the Government  is it stated that he can say to him, 'HERE, TAKE YOUR OWN'? — He replied: There [in the case of the terumah] the defect  is not noticeable, whereas here [in the case of the coin] the defect is noticeable. It was stated: If a man lends his fellow [something] on [condition that it should be repaid in] a certain coin, and that coin became obsolete, Rab said