Today’s daf is sponsored by Art Gould in loving memory of Art’s mother Shirley, Sarah bat Avraham v’Ziche Reicha on her 8th yahrzeit. “She was a life-long learner, a striver, she sewed and made mosaics. Once her three children were old enough, she went back to school, earned a master’s degree, created a new career doing social work and counseling, and published four books on raising a family. She lives on in the tallitot and quilts she made. She would be proud to see the stream of b’nai mitzvah that continues this year with the 2nd and 3rd of her great-grandchildren.”
Rav holds like Rabbi Meir in the Mishna that slaves are considered like land and therefore they are not acquired by a thief. He holds like Rabbi Meir against the mainstream opinion of the rabbis either because his version of the Mishna has the opinions switched and it was the rabbis who held that position or because there were two braitot that showed Rabbi Meir holding the other position and therefore he switched the version in our Mishna to match the braitot. The first braita has the same rulings as our Mishna, but reverses who said what. The second braita involves a different case but where it is clear that Rabbi Meir holds slaves are considered like movable property and the rabbis hold they are like land. If one steals and slave and has the slave work, when they return the slave, does the thief need to compensate the owner for loss of work as well? If the original owner was anyway not using the slave to work, can this be compared to a case of a squatter, one who lives in an uninhabited house, as one benefits without causing a loss to the owner? Rav Yosef bar Chama would seize the slaves of those who owed him money and they would work for him. His son Rava raised several difficulties with this arrangement, both in terms of not compensating for the work and claiming that it looked like he was collecting interest. On account of the first issue, Rav Yosef defended his decision but on account of the second, he stopped his practice of doing this. If one uses another’s boat without permission, does the thief just return the boat and add depreciation (as one pays the amount from the moment it was stolen) or does one need to add a rental fee? Rav and Shmuel disagree but Rav Pappa explains that they don’t disagree, they are each referring to a different situation. The Mishna distinguishes between coins that are ruined physically and those that are removed from the currency. Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda debate what exactly is the case of ‘removed from currency’ – cannot be used in that country but can be used in another or cannot be used anywhere? A difficulty is raised against each position but is resolved. One who takes a loan with the agreement that the borrower will pay back a set amount of money in a particular currency, but before the loan is returned, the currency is no longer in use, Rav and Shmuel disagree about what currency is used to pay back the loan. Shmuel’s opinion is questioned, particularly in light of how Rav Nachman understands Shmuel’s ruling.
