דף צ"ו
A creditor collects from a field leaned to his loan from the buyer
The גמרא explains if it is שבח המגיע לכתפים, improvement that reaches the shoulders, grain ready to be harvested that does not need the land the creditor must compensate the buyer for the improvements; if it is not fully grown it is part of the land, according to the opinion that the buyer cannot compensate the creditor with cash, the land is the creditors and the improvements are collected through the lien. According to the opinion that the buyer can compensate with cash the creditor can collect the improvements only if the property is a אפותיקי, a specific parcel of land that guarantees the loan upon default.
The תקנת השבים applied to a buyer
A thief can keep improvements to encourage him to compensate his victim. If he sells the stolen which is improved by the buyer he also keeps the improvements. He acquires the rights of the thief by way of the purchase.
The תקנת השבים applied to a gentile middleman
The gentile purchased a stolen object from a Jew, improved it and then sold it to another Jew. The גמרא leaves the question unresolved.
A change in name affects the thief's acquisition
As long as the object is referred by the same name it is not a change. The thief does not acquire a cut down a palm into his property, or a tree made it into logs. However he does acquire logs made into beams or beams into boards because they are referred to by a different name.
If the thief stole a לולב and separated the leaves, leaves and made them into a broom he acquires them.
פסול הילכתי בלולב
If the middle leaf was removed the לולב is disqualified as חסר. If it is split it is not הדר. It is kosher on all the days except the first. According to a second version in the גמרא if the leaf is removed the disqualification is הדר. Either way, a disqualification is a change and the thief acquires.
Earth into bricks and a silver bar into coins, shining tarnished coins
All processes are reversible. It is therefore not a קנין גזלה.
The novel teaching of the זה הכלל in the Mishnah: the thief pays the value at the time of the theft
1. If the improvement was incidental such as maturing in time into a larger animal.
In spite of the כלל
רב נחמן imposed payment on a professional thief a fine for improvements made with a stolen item such as the benefit of plowing with stolen oxen even after he returned the oxen.
משנה
Animals and slaves that lost irretrievable weight
The תנא קמא claims in both cases he cannot say הרי שלך לפניך. רבי מאיר argues by slaves because they are similar to land. רב holds like רבי מאיר
Reason:
Although he represents a minority opinion there are two ברייתות that indicate that the view of רבי מאיר in our Mishnah is the view of the חכמים. When there are two ברייתות against the משנה he follows the presentation of the ברייתות.
