Bava Kamma

he will do so for the principal even on [real] property that has been sold, but for the Amelioration only on assets which are free [in the hands of the vendor]. [But this is certain,] that the owner of the field is entitled to come and take away the field together with the increment. Now, do we not deal here with a purchaser who was ignorant of the law and did not know whether real property is subject to the law of robbery or is not subject to the law of robbery?  And even in such a case the owner of the field will be entitled to come and take away the land together with the increment. Does not this show that even in the case of inadvertent misappropriation,  [R. Meir] would impose the fine? — It may however be said that this is not so, [as we are dealing here] with a purchaser who is a scholar and knows very well  [that real property is not subject to the law of robbery]. 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 and 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 has 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 assume that R. Meir would impose the fine even in the case of inadvertent misappropriation why should he not have to pay for the combined value of the wool and the improvement? Does this not prove that it is only in the case of wilful misappropriation that the fine is imposed but in the case of inadvertent misappropriation the fine would not be imposed? — This could indeed be proved from it. 'R. Judah says that the misappropriated [animal] will be restored intact. R. Simeon says that the animal be considered as if it had been insured with the robber for its value [at the time of the robbery].' What is the practical difference between them?  — Said R. Zebid: They differ regarding the increased value [still] attaching to the misappropriated article. R. Judah maintained that this would belong to the plaintiff  whereas R. Simeon was of the opinion that this would belong to the robber.  R. papa, however, said that both might agree that an increased value [still] attaching to the misappropriated article should not solely belong to the plaintiff,  but where they differed was as to whether the robber should be entitled to retain a half or a third or a fourth  for [his attending to the welfare of the article]. R. Judah maintaining that an increased value [still] attaching to the misappropriated article would belong solely to the robber,  whereas R. Simeon maintained that the robber would be paid only to the extent of a half, a third or a fourth. We have learnt: 'BUT IF HE MISAPPROPRIATED A COW WHICH BECAME PREGNANT WHILE WITH HIM AND THEN GAVE BIRTH, OR A SHEEP WHICH WHILE WITH HIM GREW WOOL WHICH HE SHEARED, HE WOULD PAY IN ACCORDANCE WITH [THE VALUE AT] THE TIME OF THE ROBBERY.' That is so only if the cow has already given birth, but if the cow has not given birth yet it would be returned as it is. This accords well with the view of R. Zebid who said that an increased value still attaching to the misappropriated article would according to R. Judah belong to the plaintiff; I [the Mishnah] would then be in accordance with R. Judah. But on the view of R. papa who said that it would belong to the robber,  it would be in accordance neither with R. Judah nor with R. Simeon? — R. Papa might say to you that the ruling [stated in the text] would apply even where the cow has not yet given birth, as even then he would have to pay in accordance with [the value at] the time of the robbery. For as for the mention of 'giving birth', the reason is that since the earlier clause contains the words 'giving birth', the later clause similarly mentions 'giving birth'. It was taught in accordance with R. papa: 'R. Simeon says that [the animal] is to be considered as if its pecuniary value had been insured with the robber, [who will however be paid] to the extent of a half, a third or a fourth [of the increase In value].' R. Ashi said: When we were at the School of R. Kahana, a question was raised with regard to the statement of R. Simeon that the robber will be paid to the extent of a half, a third or a fourth [of the increase in value] whether at the time of his parting with the misappropriated article he can be paid in specie, or is he perhaps entitled to receive his portion out of the body of the misappropriated animal. The answer was found in the statement made by R. Nahman in the name of Samuel: 'There are three cases where increased value will be appraised and paid in money. They are as follow's: [In the settlement of accounts] between a firstborn and a plain son,  between a creditor and a purchaser.  and between a creditor  and heirs.'  Said Rabina to R. Ashi: Did Samuel really say that a creditor will have to pay the purchaser for increased value? Did Samuel not state  that a creditor distrains even on the increment?  — He replied: There is no difficulty, as the former ruling applies to an increment which could reach the shoulders to be carried away.  whereas the latter ruling deals with an increment which could not reach the shoulders to be carried away.  He rejoined:  Do not cases happen every day where Samuel distrains even on an increment which could reach the shoulders to be carried away? — He replied: There is still no difficulty,