Commentary for Bava Batra 87:5
הניחא למאן דאמר רשות יורש לאו כרשות לוקח דמי שפיר אלא למאן דאמר רשות יורש כרשות לוקח דמי מאי איכא למימר
Hence in the first clause also the 'selling' is inserted. But [is this rule sound in regard] even to the second clause? Granted that the original owner abandons his claim to the article itself, he has not abandoned his claim to the money, has he?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He still has a claim on the thief for the value of the article, and is therefore still an interested party. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
Explore commentary for Bava Batra 87:5. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.