Mesorat%20hashas for Bava Kamma 138:11

אמר אביי אי לאו דא"ר יוחנן צנועין ורבי דוסא אמרו דבר אחד הוה אמינא צנועין אית להו דרבי דוסא ורבי דוסא לית ליה דצנועין

is not entitled to payment because the stolen article is not his, and the other one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The owner. ');">²⁰</span> is not entitled to payment as the article is not in his possession.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This proves that the lack of possession is a defect in the very ownership, and if an article out of possession is not subject to double payment it could neither be subject to the law of consecration and alienation which are incidents of ownership. ');">²¹</span>

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Bava Kamma 138:11. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.