הא דמסיק ביה כשיעור ארעא ושבחא הא דלא מסיק ביה אלא כשיעור ארעא This ruling, that Shmuel would collect the enhanced value, is for a case where the creditor is owed by the debtor the amount of the value of the land and the enhanced value. That ruling, that Shmuel would not collect the value of the enhancement, is for a case where the creditor is owed by the debtor only the amount of the value of the land.
אמר ליה הניחא למאן דאמר אי אית ליה זוזי ללוקח לא מצי מסלק ליה לבעל חוב שפיר אלא למ"ד אי אית ליה זוזי ללוקח מצי מסלק ליה לבעל חוב לימא ליה אי הוו לי זוזי הוה מסלקינא לך מכוליה ארעא השתא הב לי גריוא דארעא שיעור שבחאי Ravina said to him: This works out well according to the one who says: If the purchaser of the field has money, he still cannot remove the creditor from the land, i.e., the creditor has the right to collect the land. This is well. But according to the one who says: If the purchaser of the field has money, he can remove the creditor from the land, i.e., the purchaser can choose to pay him money instead, let the purchaser say: If I had money, I would remove you from all of the land; now that I do not have sufficient money to pay what you are owed, give me at least a se’a [griva] of land, which is the amount of my enhancement.
אמר ליה הכא במאי עסקינן כגון דשויה ניהליה אפותיקי דאמר ליה לא יהא לך פרעון אלא מזה: Rav Ashi said to him: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the debtor set aside this field as designated repayment for him, as he said to him: You shall not be repaid from anything but this, in which case he clearly has a lien on this field and nothing else.
אמר רבא גזל והשביח ומכר וגזל והשביח והוריש מה שהשביח מכר מה שהשביח הוריש: § The Gemara continues the discussion of a stolen item that has been enhanced. Rava says: If one robbed another of an item and enhanced it and sold it to another, and similarly, if one robbed another of an item and enhanced it and then died and bequeathed it, he sold that which he enhanced and bequeathed that which he enhanced. And the robbery victim, should he wish to recover the stolen item, must pay the purchaser or heir for the enhanced value.
בעי רבא השביח לוקח מהו בתר דבעיא הדר פשטה מה מכר ראשון לשני כל זכות שתבא לידו: Rava raises a dilemma related to the aforementioned halakha: What is the halakha if a purchaser enhanced the stolen item? Must the robbery victim pay the purchaser for the enhanced value or not? After Rava raised the dilemma, he then resolved it: What has the first person sold to the second in any sale? He has sold any rights that will come into his possession. Since the robber had the rights to the value of his enhancements to the stolen item, he sold those rights to the purchaser as well.
בעי רבא השביח עובד כוכבים מהו א"ל רב אחא מדפתי לרבינא תקנתא לעובד כוכבים ניקו ונעבוד אמר ליה לא צריכא כגון דזבניה לישראל סוף סוף הבא מחמת עובד כוכבים הרי הוא כעובד כוכבים Rava raises a dilemma: What is the halakha if a gentile robber enhanced the value of a stolen item? Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina: Shall we arise and institute an ordinance for the benefit of a gentile? Ravina said to him: This question is not necessary except where it was the case that a gentile sold it to a Jew. Rava was asking if the Jew needs to return the enhanced value. The Gemara comments: Ultimately, one who comes to possess an item due to purchasing it from a gentile is like a gentile himself because, as stated previously, in any sale the purchaser’s rights are identical to the seller’s. Since the Sages did not institute ordinances for the benefit of gentiles, the Jewish purchaser does not have those rights either.
לא צריכא כגון דגזל ישראל וזבנה ניהליה והשביחה עובד כוכבים והדר עובד כוכבים וזבנה לישראל מאי מי אמרינן כיון דמעיקרא ישראל והדר ישראל עבדי רבנן תקנתא או דלמא כיון דאיכא עובד כוכבים באמצע לא עבדו ליה רבנן תקנתא תיקו: The Gemara explains: This question is not necessary except where it was the case that a Jew robbed another of the item and sold it to a gentile, and the gentile enhanced it, and then the gentile went back and sold it to another Jew. What is the halakha in this case? Do we say: Since it was initially stolen by a Jew and was then acquired by a Jew, the Sages did institute an ordinance? Or, perhaps since there is the ownership of a gentile intervening, the Sages did not institute an ordinance. The Gemara comments: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
אמר רב פפא האי מאן דגזל דיקלא מחבריה וקטליה אע"ג דשדיא מארעא לארעא דידיה לא קני מאי טעמא מעיקרא דיקלא מיקרי והשתא נמי דיקלא מיקרי דיקלא ועביד גובי לא קני השתא מיהת גובי דדיקלא מיקרי § The mishna teaches that if one robbed another of wood and fashioned it into vessels, he acquired the wood due to the change. The Gemara discusses what qualifies as a change. Rav Pappa said: With regard to this one who robbed another of a palm tree and cut it down, although he threw it from the land of the robbery victim to his own land, he did not acquire it. What is the reason for this? The tree was initially called a palm tree, and now, although it has been cut down, it is also called a palm tree, so the change to the item is not sufficiently significant for the robber to acquire it. Moreover, if one robbed another of a palm tree and made it into logs, he did not acquire it, since now, in any event, they are called palm tree logs.
גובי ועבדינהו כשורי קני כשורי רברבי ועבדינהו כשורי זוטרי לא קני עבדינהו קצוצייתא קני By contrast, if one robbed another of logs and fashioned them into beams, he has acquired them, since this change is significant. If one robbed another of large beams and fashioned them into small beams, he did not acquire them, since they are still called beams. If he fashioned them into boards, he did acquire them.
אמר רבא האי מאן דגזל לוליבא ועבדינהו הוצי קני דמעיקרא לוליבא מיקרי והשתא הוצי הוצי ועבדינהו חופיא קני מעיקרא הוצי והשתא חופיא חופיא ועבדיה שרשורא לא קני מאי טעמא דהדר סתר ליה והוי חופיא Rava said: This one who robbed another of a palm frond and fashioned it into leaves [hutzei], i.e., he removed the leaves from the spine, has acquired it, since initially it was called a palm frond and now it is called leaves. One who robbed another of leaves and fashioned them into a broom has acquired them, since initially they were called leaves, and now they are called a broom. One who robbed another of a broom and fashioned it into a rope has not acquired it. What is the reason for this? The reason is that he can go back and unravel it, and it will once again be a broom.
בעי רב פפא נחלקה התיומת מהו תא שמע דאמר רבי מתון אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי ניטלה התיומת פסול Rav Pappa raises a dilemma: What is the halakha if the central twin-leaf became split, i.e., is this considered a change through which a stolen lulav would be acquired? The Gemara cites a proof: Come and hear that which Rabbi Matun says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: If the central twin-leaf was removed, the lulav is unfit.