Mesorat%20hashas for Bava Kamma 131:12

איתיביה רב יוסף לרבה גזל חמץ ועבר עליו הפסח

he shall restore it, but if not, it is only the value of it that he will have to pay.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not the misappropriated object itself. ');">¹¹</span> It is learnt [in the Mishnah]: If one misappropriates timber and makes utensils out of it, or wool and makes it into garments, he has to pay in accordance with the value at the time of robbery.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra p. 541. ');">¹²</span> Or as also [learnt elsewhere]: If the owner did not manage to give the first of the fleece to the priest<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with Deut. XVIII, 4. ');">¹³</span> until it had already been dyed, he is exempt,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On account of the change which took place in the colour of the wool. (Hul. 135a). ');">¹⁴</span> thus proving that a change transfers ownership. So has Renunciation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ye'ush, of the misappropriated article by its owner. ');">¹⁵</span> been declared by the Rabbis to transfer ownership. We, however, do not know whether this rule is derived from the Scripture, or is purely Rabbinical. Is it Scriptural, it being on a par with the case of one who finds a lost article?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where Renunciation by the owner would release a subsequent finder from having to restore the article found by him, as derived in B.M. 22b from a Scriptural inference. ');">¹⁶</span> For is not the law in the case of a finder of lost property that, if the owner renounced his interest in the article before it came into the hands of the finder the ownership of it is transferred to the finder? So in this case, the thief similarly acquires title to the article as soon as the owner renounces his claim. It thus seems that the transfer is of Scriptural origin! Or are we to say that this case is not comparable to that of a lost article?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where Renunciation by the owner would release a subsequent finder from having to restore the article found by him, as derived in B.M. 22b from a Scriptural inference. ');">¹⁶</span> For it is only in the case of a lost article that the law applies, since when it comes into the hands of the finder,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After Renunciation. ');">¹⁷</span> it does so lawfully, whereas in the case of the thief into whose hands it entered unlawfully, the rule therefore might be merely of Rabbinic authority, as the Rabbis might have said that ownership should be transferred by Renunciation in order to make matters easier for repentant robbers. But R. Joseph said: Renunciation does not transfer ownership even by Rabbinic ordinance. R. Joseph objected to Rabbah's view [from the following:] If a man misappropriated leavened food [before Passover],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When it was permitted. ');">¹⁸</span> when Passover has passed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the leavened food became forbidden for any use in accordance with Pes. 28a-30a. ');">¹⁹</span>

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Bava Kamma 131:12. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.