[a - 50 lines; b - 48 lines]
1)[line 1]ëàï áâæéìä ÷ééîúKAN B'GEZEILAH KAYEMES- here [in the Beraisa which rules that shepherds and tax collectors must return what they have stolen the case is one] in which the stolen item is extant
2)[line 2]åäà àáðè ãâæéìä ÷ééîú äéà!V'HA AVNET D'GEZEILAH KAYEMES HI!- but [that which prompted the decree of Rebbi - namely,] the [account of the women who discouraged her husband from repenting since he would even have to give up his] belt [-- was a case in which the stolen item] was extant! [How would the decree have helped?]
3)[line 2]ãîé àáðèDEMEI AVNET- the value of a belt
4)[line 4]îøéùMARISH- a beam [that was built into a building]
5)[line 5]ùáðàå ááéøäSHE'BENA'O BIRAH- that was built into a large building
6)[line 7]ôñéãà ãáéøäPESEIDA D'BIRAH- the loss of the building [which must be razed to recover the beam]
7)[line 7]ùåéåä øáðï ëãìéúàSHAVYUHA RABANAN KED'LEISA- the Rabanan treated it as if is not extant [although one still must pay for it since it is, in reality, extant]
8)[line 11]çåæøú áòéðéäCHOZERES B'EINEHA- returns as it is [now, without the shorn fleece or offspring, and the thief must pay for the additional value that had been carried by the ewe at the time that he stole it]
9)[line 11]øåàéï àåúä ëàéìå äéà ùåîà àöìå áëñóRO'IN OSAH K'ILU HI SHUMA ETZLO B'CHESEF- we view [the ewe] as if it had been monetarily evaluated [at the time that he stole it, and the thief must pay that amount]. The Gemara (95b) explains the difference between the opinions of Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon.
10)[line 14]áòìîàB'ALMA- generally; on a d'Oraisa level
11)[line 15]÷ðñà äåà ã÷à ÷ðéñKENASA HU D'KA KANIS- it is a fine that [the Chachamim] placed [upon a thief so that he would not benefit from his ill-gotten gains]
12)[line 16]äéëà ãëçùà îëçùHEICHA D'KICHSHA MIKCHASH- where it depreciated in value [in which case Rebbi Meir would rule that the thief may return it as is if a Shinuy is insufficient for him to acquire it, but that he must pay its original value if the Chachamim had fined him in the case in which the animal had given forth fleece or offspring]
13)[line 17]äæ÷éðäHIZKINAH- it aged [and therefore depreciated in value]
14)[line 23]ìãáøéäí ãøáðï ÷àîø ìäåL'DIVREIHEM D'RABANAN KA'AMAR LEHU- was responding to the Rabanan within their own opinion
15)[line 25]àåãå ìé îéäúODU LI MIHAS- you should at least agree with me
16)[line 26]÷ø÷ò àéðä ðâæìúKARKA EINAH NIGZELES - land cannot be [Halachically considered] stolen (KARKA NIGZELES / KARKA EINAH NIGZELES)
(a)A thief acquires the item he steals as soon as he performs a Ma'aseh Kinyan upon it. A Ma'aseh Kinyan is an action that serves to Halachically transfer an object into one's possession. This acquisition accomplishes two things. First, the thief is now responsible for the item. If something should happen to it - even if it was beyond his control (an Ones) - he must make recompense to the owner. Additionally, this is the first stage in what may potentially become a full ownership of the item. If a Shinuy (see Background to Sukah 31:3) then takes place, the thief need not return the actual stolen item to its original owner, even if it still unharmed and in his possession. Rather, he need only reimburse that individual for his loss.
(b)There are Tana'im who derive from verses in the Torah that a thief does not acquire land, Nochri slaves, or Shetaros (documents). Even if one is forcibly removed from his house or field and another takes control, it is not considered "stolen", but is rather Halachically still in the possession of its original owner (Bava Kama 117b).
(c)Due to this, one who forces another out of his plot of land does not transgress the negative commandment of "Lo Sigzol" (Vayikra 19:13). Some Rishonim, however explain that the reason why land is not subject to "Lo Sigzol" is because it cannot be physically removed from its owner's possession, which is the defining action of Gezeilah. It always remains in the same place and cannot therefore be said to have been "stolen". According to these Rishonim, the prohibition of Lo Sigzol can sometimes apply to land, as well as slaves and legal documents (see Insights to Sukah 31a).
17)[line 27]îèìèìéMETALTELEI- movable objects
18)[line 28]ìöáåò ìå àãåíLITZBO'A LO ADOM- [if one gave wool to a dyer] to dye it red for him
19)[line 32]ìîéúáL'MEISAV- to give
20)[line 34]ìà àéáòé ìïHA LO IBA'I LAN- this [question of whether or not Rebbi Meir rules that a Shinuy is Koneh mid'Oraisa] we did not question
21)[line 35]îãàôéê øá åúðéMID'APICH RAV V'TANI- from that which Rav reversed [the opinions in the Mishnah quoted earlier] and taught
22)[line 40]áùåââB'SHOGEG- [if one gained the shorn fleece or offspring of a stolen ewe] inadvertently (such as in a case in which he purchased it from a thief and was unaware of its stolen status; see Insights)
23)[line 42]âåáéï îï äîçåøøéïGOVIN MIN MECHURARIN- collect [their claim] from available [property, as opposed to that which has been sold after their lien had been established (Nechasim Meshubadim)]
24a)[line 43]ôéøåúPEIROS- the produce of a field. As the Gemara soon explains, this refers to a case in which a thief sold a parcel of stolen land to a third party. The original owner then reclaimed his field before the purchaser harvested the produce of the field. Although the purchaser may collect the value of the field itself from other property that the thief had sold following the sale of the field in question (Nechasim Meshubadim), the Chachamim decreed that the value of the produce may be collected only from available property. This decree is to protect those who subsequently purchased property from the thief (Mipnei Tikun ha'Olam), who had no reason to expect that the seller would have to make recompense for the produce of a field that he has previously sold (RASHI to Kesuvos 51b).
b)[line 43]ùáç ôéøåúSHEVACH PEIROS- the value added to the field [as a result of the investment of the purchaser (e.g., he fertilized or plowed it)]
25)[line 43]äî÷áì òìéå ìæåï áï àùúå åáú àùúåHA'MEKABEL ALAV LA'ZUN BEN ISHTO U'VAS ISHTO- one who accepted upon himself to feed the son or daughter of his wife [from a previous marriage]. This decree is also Mipnei Tikun ha'Olam, since the amount of money necessary to feed these people is neither fixed nor written in any document (ibid.).
26)[line 44]âè çåá ùàéï áå àçøéåúGET CHOV SHE'EIN BO ACHRAYUS- a bill of debt in which the borrower has not made his property into insurance for the loan (see below, entry #28)
27)[line 45]ëúåáú àùäKESUVAS ISHAH - The Jewish Marriage Contract)
(a)When a man marries (Nisu'in) a woman who was a Besulah (virgin) at the time of her Kidushin (betrothal), he must give her a marriage document stipulating that she is to receive 200 Zuz from him or his estate should he divorce her or die. 200 Zuz are equivalent to the value of 960 grams of silver. This document is called a Kesuvah (lit. "written"). Tana'im disagree as to whether this obligation is mid'Oraisa (Biblical) or mid'Rabanan (Rabbinic) in origin (Kesuvos 10a).
(b)If the bride had been widowed or divorced and is therefore a Be'ulah (not a virgin) than she receives a different Kesuvah. The Kesuvah of a Be'ulah guarantees only 100 Zuz to the bride in the case of the dissolution of the marriage. There is no question that the obligation to give this document is mid'Rabanan in origin (Kesuvos 10b). A widow is termed an "Almanah" due to that which her Kesuvah is written for the amount of a "Maneh" (one hundred Zuz) (ibid.).
(c)If a woman is younger than three at the time of her Kidushin, she always receives 200 Zuz. This is because her hymen grows back even when broken at this young age, and she is therefore by definition a Besulah.
(d)The amounts detailed above are only the minimum required to be written into a Kesuvah. One may voluntarily add any amount onto his wife's Kesuvah, and doing so is considered a way of honoring her.
28)[line 46]àçøéåú ìàå èòåú ñåôø äåàACHRAYUS LAV TA'US SOFER - responsibility left unmentioned in a legal document is the result of a mistake on the part of the scribe (ACHRAYUS TA'US SOFER / LAV TA'US SOFER)
(a)"Achrayus" (lit. responsibility) refers to a type of insurance. When one borrows money or sells or gifts land, he may specify that if he is unable to repay the loan or if it emerges that he did not have the rights to the land (e.g., it did not belong to him, or a creditor appropriated the land due to a lien which preceded the sale), then his other assets will be made available to secure the value of the loan or property. If there is no Achrayus, then the borrower or seller is not responsible to secure the loan, sale, or gift with his other holdings (Bava Basra 44b).
(b)The Tana'im disagree as to whether or not a Shtar (legal document) is assumed to include Achrayus when no mention of the condition is found therein. Rebbi Yehudah maintains that "Achrayus Ta'us Sofer" - the lack of Achrayus in a Shtar is assumed to be the result of a mistake on the part of the scribe who wrote it. Unless the Shtar specifies that there is no Achrayus, the other assets of the borrower or seller insure the value of the transaction. Rebbi Meir rules that when a Shtar includes no mention of Achrayus, it may not be assumed (Bava Metzia 13b).
29)[last line]äøé äéà éåöàä îúçú éãåHAREI HI YOTZ'AH MI'TACHAS YADO- it now is leaving the possession of [the purchaser as the owner has reclaimed his field]
95b----------------------------------------95b
30)[line 1]ä÷øïHA'KEREN- the principle (i.e., the field itself)
31a)[line 1]ðëñéí îùåòáãéíNECHASIM MESHU'ABADIM- property [that has been subsequently sold] with a lien on it
b)[line 2]ðëñéí áðé çåøéïNECHASIM BNEI CHORIN- available property (i.e., property that has not been sold but is rather still in the domain of the seller)
32)[line 2]áòì àøòàBA'AL AR'A- the owner of the land
33)[line 3]ù÷éìSHAKIL- he may take
34)[line 3]áòí äàøõB'AM HA'ARETZ- [the case is one] in which [he who purchased the stolen land] is ignorant [and thinks that he is able to keep it after his purchase]
35)[line 5]÷àúéKA'ASI- he may come
36)[line 16]ùáç ùòì âáé âæéìäSHEVACH SHE'AL GABEI GEZEILAH- additional value still found upon the stolen item (i.e., as-of-yet unshorn fleece or an as-of-yet unborn fetus)
37)[line 16]ø' éäåãä ñáø ãðâæì äåéREBBI YEHUDAH SAVAR D'NIGZAL HAVEI- Rebbi Yehudah maintains that it belongs to the owner of the ewe [since a) a Shinuy does not suffice for a thief to acquire a stolen item (RASHI, first explanation of TOSFOS DH b'Shevach); b) this Shinuy does not suffice for him to acquire it since it has not been removed from the animal and is therefore the equivalent of a reversible Shinuy (RI cited in TOSFOS DH b'Shevach)]
38)[line 19]ìîçöä, ìùìéù, åìøáéòL'MECHETZAH, LI'SHELISH, UL'REVI'A- [whether or not the thief only receives] a half, a third, or a fourth [of the value of the Shevach, depending on the percentage granted one who cultivates the animal of another in that particular locale] (see Insights)
39)[line 31]àééãé ãðñéá øéùà "éìãä"AIDI D'NASIV REISHAH "YALDAH"- since the first case in the Mishnah taught that the animal had given birth [as, since it had been stolen while expectant, it would have had to have been returned in the same condition if it had not yet given birth]
40)[line 35]ëé äåéðï áé øá ëäðàKI HAVEINAN BEI RAV KAHANA- when we were in the Yeshiva of Rav Kahana
41)[line 37]ëé îñì÷éðï ìéäKI MESALKINAN LEI- when we remove [the thief from the stolen item (since he may not keep all of it)]
42)[line 38]îáùøà (ù÷åì) [ù÷éì]MI'BISRA (SHEKOL) [SHAKIL]- he may [insist on] taking a portion of the meat (i.e., the fleece or offspring)
43)[line 38]ôùèðàPASHTANA- we resolved it
44)[line 39]ùîéï ìäï äùáç åîòìéï àåúï áãîéíSHAMIN LA'HEN HA'SHEVACH U'MA'ALIN OSAN B'DAMIM- we evaluate the additional value [that others were responsible for adding to their land] for them and they then pay them off with money
45)[line 40]áëåø ìôùåèBECHOR L'PASHUT - The Double Inheritance of a Firstborn Son
(a)A son firstborn to his father, assuming that he was the first viable child born to that father, inherits a double portion of his father's estate (Devarim 21:17; Bechoros 46a). If there are two brothers, the Bechor receives two-thirds of the inheritance; if there are three, then he receives half, with each remaining brother receiving a quarter, and so on.
(b)If a Bechor and his brother (a "Pashut") jointly invest in their father's land following his death but before it is divided, the Bechor does not receive a double portion of this added value. He need not lose any land, however. He may still take two-thirds of the property and make up the difference to his brother monetarily.
46)[line 41]áòì çåá ììå÷çBA'AL CHOV L'LOKE'ACH- a creditor [who collects property that his debtor had sold after the loan] to the purchaser [who had added value to the field]
47)[line 41]áòì çåá ìéúåîéíBA'AL CHOV L'YESOMIM- a creditor [who collects property from the estate of his deceased debtor] to the orphans [who had added value to the field after their father's death]. Rav Ashi understood from these three cases that the owner may also pay off the share of the thief with money and need not give him a share of the actual Shevach (see TOSFOS DH Sheloshah).
48)[line 43]éäéáYAHIV- he gives
49)[line 45]ëàï áùáç äîâéò ìëúôéíKAN B'SHEVACH HA'MAGI'A L'CHESEFAYIM- here [where Shmuel ruled that the creditor must pay the purchaser for the Shevach is a case] in which the produce a) had reached the level of [a person's] shoulders [in which case it is fully grown and already belongs to the purchaser] (RASHI); b) will eventually be harvested (first explanation of TOSFOS DH Shevach); c) was the result of hard toil (RABEINU TAM cited by TOSFOS DH Shevach)