Today’s daf is sponsored by Art Gould in loving memory of Art’s father Joseph, Yosef ben Shlomo Shabtai v’Rachel on his 23rd yahrzeit. "Joe was an ordinary man of extraordinary dignity, decency and dedication. When my mother first saw him she was immediately interested. Then he removed his hat; she saw his bald head and concluded he was already married with children. He wasn’t. The rest is family history. Joe was not one of those lucky people who “found what they love and never worked a day in his life.”  Instead, his career was “bring home a paycheck and support his family.” I wish we had had more time together."  Today’s daf is sponsored by Harriet Hartman in loving memory of her parents, Fruma (Florence) bat Ester v’Nachum Natan, and Baruch (Ben) ben Hinda Josepha v’ Ze’ev Stillman, whose yahrzeits are only 4 days apart in Shvat. "They always encouraged me to pursue whatever interested me and supported me with unfailing love. Their love, solidarity and stability were models to all of my children despite our geographical distance in most of our everyday lives. I broadened their horizons, as they enabled my horizons to be broadened." Contradictory statements of Shmuel regarding the collection of land by a creditor from a buyer are reconciled - in what situations does the creditor collect the enhancements as well? On what does it depend? Rava explains that if one steals an item and it increases in value while in the thief's possession, the increase goes to the thief, if the thief sells it or dies the buyer or the heirs get the enhancement as well. He asks about a case where the thief did not enhance the value of the item but the buyer/ heir did - do they get the enhancement as well? He then answers by saying that they do, as they acquired whatever rights the thief had. However, he asks if this would hold if a gentile had stolen and then sold the item to a Jew.  Ravina clarifies the case in which Rava asked this question. His question is left unanswered. Rav Pappa and Rava bring various cases where some sort of change happens to the item and they determine whether this is a significant change that would enable the robber to acquire the item or not. If the name changes, that is generally considered a significant change, but only if the item cannot be returned to its original state. The Mishna ended with an unnecessary line summing up the principle behind the cases in the Mishna. The Gemara derives from here an additional halakha that if one stole a lamb and it became a ram, a calf and it became an ox while in the possession of the thief, the item is acquired by the thief and he/she returns the value of the younger animal and if the thief sold or slaughtered it, there would be no four/five payment as it is considered owned by the thief. In a similar case, one stole oxen and used them to work his field and when they returned the animals, Rav Nachman required him to pay the value of the enhancement of the field. When Rava questioned his ruling, Rav Nachman explained that he ruled stringently as this thief had stolen many times before. If an object decreases in value in the hands of the thief, the thief returns the item at the value at the time of the theft, However, if it decreases in value on account of damages that cannot be noticed, such as, teruma that became impure, chametz after Pesach that was not sold, the thief can return the item as is, even though it now has no value. Rav held like Rabbi Meir in the Mishna regarding slaves - they are considered like land that is not acquired by a thief. Why did he hold like Rav against the mainstream opinion of the rabbis?