Related for Bava Kamma 133:13

אמר עולא מניין ליאוש שאינו קונה שנאמר (מלאכי א, יג) והבאתם גזול את הפסח ואת החולה גזול דומיא דפסח מה פסח דלית ליה תקנתא כלל

but now it is called consecrated. R. Hisda stated that R. Jonathan said: How do we learn [from Scripture] that a change transfers ownership? — Because it is said: <i>He shall restore the misappropriated object</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V. 23. ');">²³</span> What [then] is the point of the words, <i>'which he took violently away'</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V. 23. ');">²³</span> [It must be to imply that] if it still is as when he took it violently<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 382, n. 3. ');">²⁴</span> 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',' V. p. 382, n. 4. ');">²⁵</span> But is this [text] <i>'which he took violently away</i>'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V. 23. ');">²³</span> not needed to exclude the case of robbery committed by a father, in which the son need not add a fifth [to the payment] for robbery committed by his father?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that the son should in this case not be subject to Lev. V, 24-25. ');">²⁶</span> — But if so, the Divine Law should have written only 'he shall restore the misappropriated object.' Why should it further be written,<i> 'which he took violently away'</i>? Thus we can draw from it the two inferences. Some report: R. Hisda stated that R. Jonathan said: How do we learn [from Scripture] that a change does not transfer ownership? — Because it is said: He shall restore the misappropriated object, i.e., in all cases. But is it not written 'which he took violently away'? — That text is needed to indicate that it is only for robbery committed by himself that he has to add a fifth, but has not to add a fifth for robbery committed by his father. 'Ulla said: How do we learn [from Scripture] that Renunciation does not transfer ownership? Because it is said: And ye brought that which was misappropriated, and the lame and the sick.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mal. I, 13. ');">²⁷</span> 'That which was misappropriated' is thus compared to 'the lame': just as 'the lame' has no remedy at all

Explore related for Bava Kamma 133:13. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.