Reference for Bava Kamma 222:3
תנן הגוזל ומאכיל את בניו והניח לפניהם פטורין מלשלם תיובתא דרב חסדא אמר לך רב חסדא כי תניא ההיא לאחר יאוש:
[WITH IT], OR LEFT [IT] TO THEM [AS AN INHERITANCE], THEY WOULD NOT BE LIABLE TO MAKE RESTITUTION. Now, is this not a contradiction to the view of R. Hisda? — R. Hisda might say to you that this holds good only after the owner has given up hope.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the foodstuff was consumed after the proprietor had resigned himself to the loss of it completely. ');"><sup>4</sup></span> [IF HE] LEFT [IT] TO THEM [AS AN INHERITANCE], THEY WOULD NOT BE LIABLE TO MAKE RESTITUTION. Rami b. Hama said: This [ruling] proves that the possession of an heir is on the same footing in law as the possession of a purchaser;<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. 393, n. 5; v. also B.B. 44a. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>