Study Bava Kamma folio 12B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Don’t we maintain that the halakha is that we do not need movable property to be piled up upon the land one acquires in order to acquire the movable property together with it?
Rather, what have you to say? Perforce, movable property that moves around by itself, such as slaves, is different from movable property that does not move around by itself, i.e., inanimate objects. The halakha that movable property does not need to be piled up upon the land applies only to the lat
Given this distinction, one can say that here, also, an entity legally classified as land that moves around, such as a slave, is different from land that does not move around. Accordingly, a slave, which is classified as land that moves around, is not included in Shmuel’s ruling, as in his ruli
§ The Mishnah teaches: One is liable only with regard to damage caused to property for which, were he to use it for a non-sacred purpose, he would not be liable for the misuse of consecrated property.
The Talmud infers: The property in question does not have the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property, but it is consecrated property, yet one is still liable for causing damage to it.