Bava Kamma

as the latter deals with a case where the misappropriated article is still intact whereas the other teaching refers to a case where the misappropriated article is no more intact. But what about the girdle [referred to above],  in which case the misappropriated article was still intact? — What was meant by 'girdle' was the value of the girdle. But is it really the fact that so long as the misappropriated article was intact our Rabbis did not make this enactment?  What then about the beam in which case the misappropriated article was still intact and we have nevertheless learnt: [R. Johanan b. Gudgada testified] that if a misappropriated beam has been built into a house, the owner will recover only its value?  — That matter is different altogether, for since the house would otherwise be damaged. the Rabbis regarded the beam as being no longer intact. IF ONE MISAPPROPRIATED A PREGNANT COW WHICH MEANWHILE GAVE BIRTH [TO A CALF] etc. Our Rabbis taught: 'He who misappropriates a sheep and shears it, or a cow which has meanwhile given birth [to a calf], has to pay for the animal and the wool and the calf;  this is the view of R. Meir. R. Judah says that the misappropriated animal will be restored intact.  R. Simeon says that the animal will be considered as if it had been insured with the robber for its value [at the time of the robbery].' The question was raised: What was the reason of R. Meir? Was it because he held that a change leaves the article in its existing status?  Or [did he hold] in general that a change would transfer ownership, but here he imposes a fine [upon the robber], the practical difference being where the animal became leaner?  — Come and hear: If one misappropriated an animal and it became old, or slaves and they became old, he would still have to pay according to [their value at]  the time of the robbery, but R. Meir said that in the case of slaves  [the robber] would be entitled to say to the plaintiff: 'Here, take your own.'  It thus appears that in the case of an animal [even R. Meir held that] the payment would have to be in accordance with [the value at] the time of the robbery.  Now, if you assume that R. Meir was of the opinion that a change leaves the article in its previous status,  why even in the case of an animal [can the robber not say. 'Here, take your own']? Does this therefore not prove that even R. Meir held that a change would transfer ownership, and that [in the case of the wool and the calf] it was only a fine which R. Meir imposed on the robber? — It may, however, be said that R. Meir was arguing from the premises of the Rabbis, thus: According to my view a change does not transfer ownership, so that also in the case of an animal [the robber would be entitled to say. 'Here, take your own'], but even according to your view, that a change does transfer ownership, you must at least agree with me in the case of slaves, who are compared to real property, and, as we know, real property is not subject to the law of robbery.  The Rabbis, however, answered him: 'No, for slaves are on a par with movables [in this respect].' Come and hear: [If wool was handed over to a dyer] to dye it red but he dyed it black, or to dye it black but he dyed it red, R. Meir says that he would have to pay [the owner of the wool] for the value of the wool.  [It thus appears that] he had to pay only for the original value of the wool but not for the combined value of the wool and the improvement [on account of the colour]. Now, if you suppose that R. Meir held that a change would not transfer ownership, why should he not have to pay for the combined value of the wool and the improvement? Does this therefore not prove that R. Meir held that a change would transfer ownership and that here [in the case of the calf] it was only a fine that R. Meir imposed [upon the robber]? — This could indeed be proved from it. Some even say that this question was never so much as raised; for since Rab transposed [the names in the Mishnah] and read thus: If one misappropriated a cow which became old, or slaves who became old, he would have to pay in accordance with [the value at] the time of the robbery;  this is the view of R. Meir, whereas the Sages say that in the case of slaves the robber would be entitled to say, Here, take your own',  it is quite certain that according to R. Meir a change would transfer ownership, and that here [in the case of a calf] it was only a fine that R. Meir imposed [upon the robber]. But if a question was raised, it was this: Was the fine imposed only in the case of wilful misappropriation whereas in the case of inadvertent misappropriation  the fine was not imposed, or perhaps even for inadvertent misappropriation the fine was also imposed? — Come and hear: Five [kinds of creditors] are allowed to distrain only on the free assets [of the debtor];  they are as follows: [creditors for] produce,  for Amelioration showing profits,  for an undertaking to maintain the wife's son or the wife's daughter,  for a bond of liability without a warranty of indemnity  and for the kethubah of a wife where no property is made security.  Now, what authority have you heard lay down that the omission to make the property security  is not a mere scribal error  if not R. Meir?  And it is yet stated: 'Creditors for produce and Amelioration showing profits [may distrain on free assets in the hands of the debtor].' Now, who [are creditors for Amelioration showing] profits?  They come in, do they not, where the vendor has misappropriated a field from his fellow and sold it to another who ameliorated it and from whose hands it was subsequently taken away. [The law then is that] when the purchaser comes to distrain