Bava Kamma

as this is so only where the amount of the debt owing to the creditor covers both the land and the increment, whereas the former ruling  applies where [the debt due to him] is only to the extent of the land. He rejoined: I grant you that on the view  that [even] if the purchaser possesses money he has no right to bar the creditor from land by paying in specie, your argument would be sound, but according to the view that a purchaser possessing money can bar the creditor from the field by paying him in specie, why should he not say to the creditor, 'If I had had money, I would surely have been able to bar you from the whole field [by paying you in specie]; now also therefore I am entitled to be left with a griva  of land corresponding to the value of my amelioration'?  — He replied: We are dealing here with a case where the debtor expressly made that field a security, as where he said to him: 'You shall not be paid from anything but from the field.' Raba stated: [There is no question] that where the robber improved [the misappropriated article] and then sold it, or where the robber improved [the misappropriated article] and then left it to his heirs, he has genuinely sold or left to his heirs the increment he has created.  Raba [however] asked: What would be the law where [after having bought the misappropriated article from the robber] the purchaser improved it? After asking the question he himself gave the answer: That what the former sold the latter, was surely all rights  which might subsequently accrue to him. Raba [again] asked: What would be the law where a heathen  [misappropriated an article and] improved it? — Said R. Aha of Difti to Rabina: Shall we trouble ourselves to make an enactment  for [the benefit of] a heathen? — He said to him: No; the query might refer to the case where. e.g., he sold it to an Israelite. [But he retorted:] Be that as it may, he who comes to claim through a heathen [predecessor], could surely not expect better treatment than the heathen himself. — No: the query could still refer to the case where, e.g., an Israelite had misappropriated an article and sold it to a heathen who improved it and who subsequently sold it to another Israelite. What then should be the law? Shall we say that since an Israelite was in possession at the beginning and an Israelite was in possession at the end, our Rabbis would also here make [use of] the enactment, or perhaps since a heathen intervened our Rabbis would not make [use of] the enactment? — Let it remain undecided. R. papa stated: If one misappropriated a palm tree from his fellow and cut it down, he would not acquire title to it even though he threw it from [the other's] field into his own land, the reason being that it was previously called palm tree and is now also called palm tree.  [So also] where out of the palm tree he made logs he would not acquire title to them, as even now they would still be called logs of a palm tree.  It is only where out of the logs he made beams that he would acquire title to them.  But if out of big beams he made small beams he would not acquire title to them,  though were he to have made them into boards he would acquire title to them. Raba said: If one misappropriated a Lulab  and converted it into leaves he would acquire title to them, as originally it was called Lulab whereas now they are mere leaves.  So also where out of the leaves he made a broom he would acquire title to it, as originally they were leaves whereas now they form a broom,  but where out of the broom he made a rope he would not acquire title to it since if he were to undo it, it would again become a broom. R. papa asked: What would be the law where the central leaf  of the Lulab became split? — Come and hear: R. Mathon said that R. Joshua b. Levi stated that if the central leaf of the Lulab was removed the Lulab would be disqualified [for ritual purposes].