The Daf Yomi B'Siyata Dishmaya edition, an audio series of the Talmud Bavli, has been generously sponsored in our Daf Yomi program by our good friend and patron, Siyahu Ashar HaKohen, and his dear wife, Rina. We pray that, with the help of Hashem, they will continue to have success, prosperity in all their endeavors, health, happiness, and much nachat from their children. May they enjoy many years of shalom bayit, tranquility, and peace of mind. Amen.
Today's daf is being studied in memory of Marat Zikana Tzipa bat Sarah and Avraham ben Esther. May their souls be at rest in the Garden of Eden.
We begin today's daf on Tzadi Vav Amud Bet and we are at the Mishna: Gazal behema ve'hikina. A person stole an animal, and it aged. Similarly, if he stole an eved Kena'ani and it aged, he pays according to the time of the theft. The reasoning is that the change in the animal is considered a shinui, and this type of shinui is not reversible, as the Gemara will elaborate. Therefore, the gazlan has acquired the eved and the behema, but he must pay according to the time of the theft.
Rabbi Meir states: "Regarding slaves, one tells him, 'Here it is before you.'" Rabbi Meir asserts that even though the slave has aged, one simply returns it as is, because he holds that an eved Kena'ani is like karka, and just as land cannot be stolen, so too, an eved Kena'ani is not considered stolen. Thus, it is not a case of gezel, and hence the principle of shinui koneh does not apply; you return it as it currently is.
The Gemara continues with another Mishna: Gazal matbe'a venisdak. If one stole a coin and it cracked, this is also a shinui. Stolen fruits that have spoiled or stolen wine that has turned to vinegar similarly fall under this category. The thief must pay according to the time of the theft. If a coin was rendered invalid, meaning it was taken out of circulation, or if terumah became tameh, or if chametz passed over Pesach, which is forbidden to benefit from, in all these cases, the thief returns the item as it is. The logic is that these damages are not noticeable; for instance, with chametz that passed over Pesach, it appears the same, and the intrinsic value has not changed. Therefore, one must return it as is without compensating for the time of the gezel.
The Mishna further states that if an animal became unfit for a korban due to a blemish that is not noticeable, or if it was destined to be stoned for causing death, it is returned as is. The reasoning is that these damages are categorized as hezek she'eino nikar. Although the animal may not be fit for sacrifice, it cannot be considered a clear damage since not every animal is suitable for the altar to begin with.
The Gemara then questions whether the term "aged" in the Mishna implies actual old age. Rav Pappa clarifies that it can refer to any irreversible weakness, such as if the animal became sick and cannot regain its strength. This type of weakness is considered a shinui, and thus the gazlan pays according to the time of the theft.
Mar Kashisha, son of Rav Chisda, shared a teaching in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: Even if a thief steals a lamb and it matures into a ram or a calf into an ox, the transformation is considered a shinui, and he must pay according to the time of the theft. The Gemara emphasizes the importance of accurately quoting the names of sages, as it reflects the integrity of the transmission of teachings.
Rabbi Meir's position on slaves is reiterated, as he holds that they are like land, and thus even if they have aged, they are returned as is. Rav Chanina bar Avdimi states that halacha follows Rabbi Meir, which is intriguing because it contradicts the Tanna Kama, who views slaves as akin to movable property, which can be stolen.
The Gemara questions why Rav would rule like Rabbi Meir against the majority view. It suggests that Rav had a baraita that reversed the opinions, thus justifying his ruling. The discussion continues, examining the implications of whether an eved is treated like karka or movable property.
The Gemara presents a scenario involving a stolen boat. Rav states that the owner can choose to charge for either rent or depreciation, depending on which is greater. Shmuel argues that one can only charge for depreciation, as the act of taking the boat was a gezel. Rav Pappa reconciles the two opinions, explaining that Rav's ruling applies when the boat is typically rented, while Shmuel's applies when it is not.
The Gemara then discusses the implications of stolen currency, particularly in the context of ma'aser sheni. It states that one cannot use coins that are not in circulation, and the discussion revolves around the validity of different types of coins in Jerusalem and Bavel.
Ultimately, the Gemara concludes that the laws governing stolen property and compensation are complex and nuanced, requiring careful consideration of context and the nature of the items involved. The discussions reflect the depth of halachic reasoning and the importance of maintaining integrity in the transmission of Torah teachings.