Bava Metzia page 14. You have a case where a field was stolen and now goes back to the original owner. Rashi asks why the owner does not pay for the improvement? After all he is getting an improved field. Rashi says it is a case where the thief let it go fallow and it was improved in the hands of the buyer.
What you see here is even though this Rashi disagrees with Tosphot and the Rambam, still the foundation principle is the buyer who improved it gets back the improvement. Just like how Rav Shach explains things on page 15 where the case is the buyer ate fruit, and has to pay back. Rav Shach [Elazar Menachem Shach of the Ponovitch Yeshiva in Bnei Brak.]says that is fruit he did not work on. See the Avi Ezri.
מציעא בבא 14. יש לך מצב שבו שדה נגנב ונקנה ועכשיו חוזר לבעלים המקורים. רש"י שואל מדוע בעל השדה אינו משלם לשיפור? אחרי כל מה שהוא מקבל שדה שהשתפר. רש"י אומר שזה מקרה שבו הגנב נתן לשדה ללכת בור והיה שיפור בידיו של הקונה
מה שרואים מפה הוא שאף על פי שרש''י חולק על תוספות והרמב''ם בדין הזה עם כל זה היסוד הוא שמה שהלוקח שיפר הוא מקבל. וזה כמו שרב שך פירש הסוגיא בדף ט''ו איפה שיש דיון דומה
שם הלוקח אכל פירות וצריך לשלם על מה שאכל. רב שך מסביר שזה מצה שלא עבד על השבח כגון שהפירות הם פירי אילן
What is bothering me and has bothered me for a long time is that we seem to be letting the thief off the hook because of what the owner of the field pays. This is a question in my mind to the Tosphot Rambam Alliance, and all the more so to Rashi.
What I mean here is this. From the Rambam we have that the owner pays the lesser amount of one of two things, the improvement or the expense. And in the case the expense is less then that is all he pays and the thief pays the rest of the difference. But my question is what would happen if the owner would pay nothing? Then the thief would have to pay the entire improvement--not just the difference between the expense and the improvement.
All the more so to Rashi who puts the major burden of paying to the buyer on the back of the owner. Rashi says if the owner got back his field in a better state than when it was stolen he would have to pay for all the improvement. Then I ask what does the thief pay? Nothing except to give back the money to the buyer?
What you see here is even though this Rashi disagrees with Tosphot and the Rambam, still the foundation principle is the buyer who improved it gets back the improvement. Just like how Rav Shach explains things on page 15 where the case is the buyer ate fruit, and has to pay back. Rav Shach [Elazar Menachem Shach of the Ponovitch Yeshiva in Bnei Brak.]says that is fruit he did not work on. See the Avi Ezri.
מציעא בבא 14. יש לך מצב שבו שדה נגנב ונקנה ועכשיו חוזר לבעלים המקורים. רש"י שואל מדוע בעל השדה אינו משלם לשיפור? אחרי כל מה שהוא מקבל שדה שהשתפר. רש"י אומר שזה מקרה שבו הגנב נתן לשדה ללכת בור והיה שיפור בידיו של הקונה
מה שרואים מפה הוא שאף על פי שרש''י חולק על תוספות והרמב''ם בדין הזה עם כל זה היסוד הוא שמה שהלוקח שיפר הוא מקבל. וזה כמו שרב שך פירש הסוגיא בדף ט''ו איפה שיש דיון דומה
שם הלוקח אכל פירות וצריך לשלם על מה שאכל. רב שך מסביר שזה מצה שלא עבד על השבח כגון שהפירות הם פירי אילן
What is bothering me and has bothered me for a long time is that we seem to be letting the thief off the hook because of what the owner of the field pays. This is a question in my mind to the Tosphot Rambam Alliance, and all the more so to Rashi.
What I mean here is this. From the Rambam we have that the owner pays the lesser amount of one of two things, the improvement or the expense. And in the case the expense is less then that is all he pays and the thief pays the rest of the difference. But my question is what would happen if the owner would pay nothing? Then the thief would have to pay the entire improvement--not just the difference between the expense and the improvement.
All the more so to Rashi who puts the major burden of paying to the buyer on the back of the owner. Rashi says if the owner got back his field in a better state than when it was stolen he would have to pay for all the improvement. Then I ask what does the thief pay? Nothing except to give back the money to the buyer?
