Study Bava Kamma folio 97A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
ומי אמר רב עבדא כמקרקעי דמי? והאמר רב דניאל בר רב קטינא אמר רב: התוקף בעבדו של חבירו ועשה בו מלאכה – פטור. ואי סלקא דעתך עבדא כמקרקעי דמי, אמאי פטור? ברשותא דמריה קאי!
And did Rav actually say that the legal status of a Canaanite slave is like that of real estate? But doesn’t Rav Daniel bar Rav Ketina say that Rav says: One who seizes another’s Canaanite slave and performs labor with him is exempt from paying the master for the labor of the slave? And if it enters your mind to say that, in Rav’s opinion, the legal status of a slave is like that of real estate, why is he exempt from paying? A slave, like real estate, is always in the possession of his owner, wherever he might be. Therefore, the one who seized him did not steal the slave, in which case he could simply return him. Rather, he made use of a slave belonging to another and should be liable to pay for the master’s loss of the slave’s labor.
הכא במאי עסקינן – שלא בשעת מלאכה. כי הא דשלח ליה רבי אבא למרי בר מר, בעי מיניה מרב הונא: הדר בחצר חבירו שלא מדעתו, צריך להעלות לו שכר או אין צריך להעלות לו שכר? ושלחו ליה: אינו צריך להעלות לו שכר.
The Talmud answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the one who seized the slave forced him to perform labor when it was not during regular working hours. Consequently, he did not prevent the slave from performing labor for his master. Since the owner did not incur any loss, the one who seized the slave is not obligated to pay for the benefit that he derived from the slave. This is like that message that R' Abba sent to Mari bar Mar: Ask Rav Huna concerning one who resides in another’s courtyard without the owner’s knowledge: Does he need to pay him rent, or does he not need to pay him rent? And they sent to him in response: He does not need to pay him rent, since the owner of the property did not incur any monetary loss.