Commentary for Bava Kamma 222:10

אמר מר גזילה קיימת חייבין לשלם נימא תיהוי תיובתא דרמי בר חמא אמר לך רמי בר חמא כי תניא ההיא

The Master stated: 'As soon as the misappropriated article is no more intact they would be exempt.' Should we not say that this is a contradiction to the view of R. Hisda?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to whom the person who consumed the misappropriated article could also be called upon to pay. ');">¹⁷</span> — R. Hisda could say to you that the ruling [here] applies subsequent to Renunciation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the foodstuff was consumed after the proprietor had resigned himself to the loss of it completely. ');">¹⁸</span> The Master said: 'So long as the misappropriated article is in existence they will be liable to pay.' Should we not say that this is a contradiction to the view of Rami b. Hama?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Maintaining that if after Renunciation the robber died, the misappropriated article could rightly remain with the heirs, just as with purchasers under similar circumstances; cf. supra p. 652; v. also B.B. 44a. ');">¹⁹</span> — But Rami b. Hama could say to you that this teaching

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 222:10. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.