Commentary for Bava Kamma 227:28

הכא נמי בלסטים מזויין ור' שמעון היא אי הכי היינו גזלן תרי גווני גזלן

raises a difficulty!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For according to him there is no Renunciation in the case of a thief. ');">⁴⁷</span> The problem, it is true, is easily solved if we accept the view of 'Ulla who stated that where Renunciation was definitely known to have taken place ownership is transferred; the Mishnaic ruling here would then similarly apply to the case where Renunciation was definitely known to have taken place and would thus be unanimous. But on the view of Rabbah who stated that even where the Renunciation is definitely known to have taken place there is still a difference of opinion,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between R. Simeon and the other Rabbis. ');">⁴⁸</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 227:28. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.