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.

The Gemara 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 Rabbi 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.

The Gemara rejects this comparison: How can these cases be compared? Granted, there, in the case of a courtyard, whether the reasoning for that halakha is according to the one who says: An inhabited house remains habitable, and it is therefore satisfactory for the owner of the property to have someone residing in his courtyard, or whether the reasoning is according to the one who says that since the verse states: “In the city is left desolation, and the gate is smitten unto ruin” (Isaiah 24:12), which indicates that a desolate house will fall into ruin but an inhabited house will be maintained, either way it is satisfactory for the owner that one stay in his courtyard. Consequently, the one who resides there need not pay rent.

But here, in the case of a slave, is it satisfactory for him that his slave be weakened by performing labor for another? The Sages say: Indeed, it is satisfactory for him that the work habits of his slave not be undone.

The Gemara records a related incident. Members of the house of Rav Yosef bar Ḥama would, with his approval, seize the slaves of people who owed him money, and they would work them against the will of the owners. Rabba, son of Rav Yosef bar Ḥama, said to him: What is the reason that the Master does this, i.e., seizes and uses these slaves? Rav Yosef bar Ḥama said to him: As Rav Naḥman says: A slave is not worth even the bread in his stomach. When the slaves work for me and eat in my home, I am not causing the owners any monetary loss. Rav Yosef bar Ḥama’s son said to him: I will say that Rav Naḥman said this with regard to specific slaves, such as his slave Daru, who only dances among the wine barrels [kuvei] and does not perform any labor. All other slaves perform labor, and their labor is worth more than their board.

Rav Yosef bar Ḥama said to him: I hold in accordance with the opinion of Rav Daniel, as Rav Daniel bar Rav Ketina says that Rav says: One who seizes another’s slave and performs labor with him is exempt from paying the master for the labor of the slave. Apparently, it is satisfactory for the master that the work habits of his slave not be undone.

Rabba said to him: This statement of Rav Daniel applies when the one who seizes the slave is not owed money by the owner of the slave. But since the Master is owed money by the owner of the slave, this has the appearance of interest, as Rav Yosef bar Minyumi says that Rav Naḥman says: Although the Sages said that one who resides in another’s courtyard without his knowledge does not need to pay him rent, if one lent money to another, and then resided in the courtyard of another, i.e., that of his creditor, he needs to pay him rent, to avoid the appearance of interest. Rav Yosef bar Ḥama said to him: I retract my opinion, and will no longer seize the slaves of my debtors.

It was stated: In the case of one who seizes another’s ship and performs labor with it, what payment can the ship’s owner claim? Rav says that he may choose: If he wishes, he can take the cost of the ship’s rent, and if he wishes, he can take the amount by which the value of the ship was diminished by being used for this labor, whichever amount is larger. And Shmuel says: He can take only the amount by which the value of the ship was diminished.

Rav Pappa said: They do not disagree. They were addressing different cases: This, i.e., Rav’s statement, is referring to a ship that is commonly available for rental. That, i.e., Shmuel’s statement, is referring to a ship that is not commonly available for rental. And if you wish, say instead: This and that statement are both referring to a ship that is commonly available for rental. This, Rav’s statement, is referring to a case where the one who seized the ship descended, i.e., took possession, with the intention of renting the ship. He pays for the rental. That, Shmuel’s statement, is referring to a case where the one who seized the ship descended with the intention of robbery, to use it without paying. He is regarded as a robber and pays only the amount by which its value was diminished.

§ The mishna teaches: If one robbed another of a coin and it cracked, he pays the value of the coin at the time of the robbery, as he has acquired it due to its change. But if the coin was invalidated, he says: That which is yours is before you. Since this is not a significant change, he has not acquired it. The Sages disagree with regard to the explanation of this halakha. Rav Huna says: When the mishna states that the coin cracked, it means that it actually cracked; when it says that the coin was invalidated, it means that it was invalidated by the government and is therefore unfit for use.

And Rav Yehuda says: A coin invalidated by the government is the same as a coin that is cracked, because its complete loss of value is a significant change. But what are the circumstances of the mishna, in which a coin that was invalidated is not considered changed? It is a case where a coin was invalidated by the government in this province, and the residents there can no longer use it, but the coin still circulates and is in use in another province.

The Gemara clarifies Rav Huna’s opinion. Rav Ḥisda said to Rav Huna: According to your opinion, that you said that the term invalidated means that the coin was invalidated by the government, and the mishna rules that in that case the robber can return it as is, there is a difficulty. But what of the cases in the mishna of one who robbed another of produce and it rotted or one who robbed another of wine and it fermented, which are similar to a coin that was invalidated by the government, since none of these items are fit for use, and the mishna teaches that the robber pays according to their value at the time of the robbery because they underwent a change? Why would the halakha be different in the case of a coin that was invalidated by the government?

Rav Huna said to him: There, in the cases of produce and wine, its taste and its smell changed. Here, in the case of the coin that was invalidated, the coin itself did not change.

The Gemara clarifies Rav Yehuda’s opinion. Rava said to Rav Yehuda: According to your opinion, that you said that a coin that was invalidated by the government is the same as one that cracked, and the mishna rules that in that case the robber pays according to its value at the time of the robbery, there is a difficulty. But what of the case in the mishna of one who robbed another of teruma and it became impure, which is similar to a coin that was invalidated by the government, and the mishna teaches that the robber says to the robbery victim: That which is yours is before you.

Rav Yehuda said to him: There, in the case of teruma, the damage is not evident, since it is impossible to tell the difference between pure and impure items. Here, in the case of the coin, the damage is evident, since one can tell by looking at it that it is the type of coin that was invalidated.

§ With regard to a coin that was invalidated, it was stated that there was a dispute concerning the question: In the case of one who lends money to another on the condition that he repay the loan using a particular kind of coin, and that coin becomes invalidated, Rav says: