Bava Kamma 223

לפני יאוש

applies prior to Renunciation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the mere transfer of possession, if the owner has not yet given up hope, is surely of no avail. ');">¹</span> R. Adda b. Ahabah read the statement of Rami b. Hama with reference to the following [teaching]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. B.M. V, 8; ibid. 62a and supra 94b. ');">²</span>

רב אדא בר אהבה מתני להא דרמי בר חמא אהא הניח להן אביהן מעות של רבית אע"פ שיודעין שהן של רבית אין חייבין להחזיר אמר רמי בר חמא זאת אומרת רשות יורש כרשות לוקח דמי

'If their father left them money acquired from usury they would not have to restore it even though they [definitely] know that it came from usury. [And it was in connection with this that] Rami b. Hama said that this proves that the possession of an heir is on the same footing as the possession of a purchaser,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since there was here a change of possession the heirs are under no liability. ');">³</span> whereas Raba said: I can still maintain that the possession of an heir is not on the same footing as the possession of a purchaser, for here there is a special reason, as Scripture states: Take thou no usury of him or increase but fear thy God that thy brother may live with thee<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXV, 36. ');">⁴</span>

רבא אמר לעולם אימא לך רשות יורש לאו כרשות לוקח דמי ושאני הכא דאמר קרא (ויקרא כה, לו) אל תקח מאתו נשך ותרבית אהדר ליה כי היכי דנחי בהדך לדידיה קא מזהר ליה רחמנא לבריה לא מזהר ליה רחמנא

[as much as to say.] 'Restore it to him so that he may live with thee.' Now, it is the man himself who is thus commanded<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To make restoration. ');">⁵</span> by the Divine Law, whereas his son is not commanded<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To make restoration. ');">⁵</span>

מאן דמתני לה אברייתא כ"ש אמתניתין מאן דמתני לה אמתניתין אבל אברייתא רמי בר חמא כרבא מתני לה

by the Divine Law. Those who attach the argument<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between Rami b. Hamah and Raba. ');">⁶</span> to the Baraitha<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Dealing with usury. ');">⁷</span>

ת"ר הגוזל ומאכיל את בניו פטורין מלשלם הניח לפניהם גדולים חייבין לשלם קטנים פטורין מלשלם ואם אמרו גדולים אין אנו יודעין חשבונות שחשב אבינו עמך פטורין

would certainly connect it also with the ruling of our Mishnah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Dealing with robbery where there is no apparent reason for the exemption except the view of Rami b. Hama. ');">⁸</span> but those who attach to our Mishnah might maintain that as regards the Baraitha<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Dealing with usury. ');">⁹</span>

משום דאמרי אין אנו יודעין פטורים אמר רבא הכי קאמר גדולים שאמרו יודעים אנו חשבונות שחשב אבינו עמך ולא פש לך גביה ולא מידי פטורין

Rami b. Hama expounds it in the same way as Raba.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., on the strength of the inference from Lev. XXV, 36. ');">¹⁰</span> Our Rabbis taught: If one misappropriated [foodstuff] and fed his children, they would not be liable to repay. If, however, he left it [intact] to them, then if they are adults they would be liable to pay, but if minors they would be exempt. But if the adults pleaded: 'We have no knowledge of the accounts which our father kept with you.' they also would be exempt. But how could they become exempt merely because they plead.'We have no knowledge of the accounts which our father kept with you'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For since they know of the robbery and the liability is definite, how could they be released by a plea of uncertainty as to the payment; cf. Rashi a.l. but also B.K. X, 7. ');">¹¹</span>

תניא אידך הגוזל ומאכיל בניו פטורין מלשלם הניח לפניהם ואכלום בין גדולים בין קטנים חייבין קטנים מי מיחייבי לא יהא אלא דאזיק אזוקי א"ר פפא הכי קאמר הניח לפניהם ועדיין לא אכלום בין גדולים בין קטנים חייבין

Said Raba: What is meant is this, 'If the adults pleaded: "We know quite well the accounts which our father kept with you and are certain that there was no balance in your favour" they also would be exempt.'Another [Baraitha] taught: If one misappropriated [foodstuff] and fed his children, they would not be liable to repay. If, however, he left it [intact] to them and they consumed it, whether they were adults or minors, they would be liable. But why should minors be liable? They are surely in no worse a case than if they had wilfully done damage?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case they are exempt; cf. supra 87a. ');">¹²</span> — Said R. Papa: What is meant is this: If, however he left it [intact] before them and they had not yet consumed it, whether they were adults or minors, they would be liable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Since it is in intact it is considered to be then in the possession of the owner.] ');">¹³</span>

אמר רבא הניח להם אביהם פרה שאולה משתמשין בה כל ימי שאלתה מתה אין חייבין באונסיה כסבורים של אביהם היא וטבחוה ואכלוה משלמין דמי בשר בזול הניח להם אביהם אחריות נכסים חייבין לשלם

Raba said:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Keth. 34b. ');">¹⁴</span> If their father left them a cow which was borrowed by him, they may use it until the expiration of the period for which it was borrowed, though if it [meanwhile] died they would not be liable for the accident.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the liabilities of the contract do not pass to them at least so long as they have not started using it; v. however H.M. 341 where no distinction is made. ');">¹⁵</span>

איכא דמתני לה ארישא ואיכא דמתני לה אסיפא

If they were under the impression that it was the property of their father, and so slaughtered it and consumed it, they would have to pay for the value of meat at the cheapest price.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is generally estimated to be two-thirds of the ordinary price; cf. B.B. 146b; v. also supra p. 98. ');">¹⁶</span> If their father left them property that forms a [legal] security, they would be liable to pay. Some connect this [last ruling] with the commencing clause,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Dealing with the case where the cow died of itself. ');">¹⁷</span>

מאן דמתני לה ארישא כל שכן אסיפא ופליגא דרב פפא מאן דמתני לה אסיפא אבל ארישא לא והיינו דרב פפא

but others connect it with the concluding clause.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Stating the law where it was slaughtered and consumed by them. ');">¹⁸</span> Those who connect it with the commencing clause<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Dealing with the case where the cow died of itself. ');">¹⁷</span>

דא"ר פפא היתה פרה גנובה לו וטבחה בשבת חייב שכבר חייב בגניבה קודם שיבא לידי איסור שבת היתה פרה שאולה לו וטבחה בשבת פטור שאיסור שבת ואיסור גניבה באין כאחד

would certainly apply it to the concluding clause<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As there is certainly more liability where they slaughtered the cow than where it died of itself. ');">¹⁹</span> and thus differ from R. Papa.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose ruling is going to be stated soon. ');">²⁰</span>

ת"ר (ויקרא ה, כג) והשיב את הגזילה אשר גזל מה ת"ל אשר גזל יחזיר כעין שגזל

whereas those who connect it with the concluding clause<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 655, n. 8. ');">²¹</span> would not apply it in the case of the commencing clause,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 655. n. 7. ');">²²</span>

מכאן אמרו הגוזל ומאכיל את בניו פטורין מלשלם הניח לפניהם בין גדולים בין קטנים חייבין משום סומכוס אמרו גדולים חייבין קטנים פטורין

and so would fall in with the view of R. Papa.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose ruling is going to be stated soon. ');">²⁰</span> for R. Papa stated:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Keth. 34b. ');">²³</span>

בר חמוה דרבי ירמיה טרק גלי באפיה דרבי ירמיה אתא לקמיה דרבי אבין

If one had a cow that he had stolen and slaughtered it on the Sabbath,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In violation of the Sabbath and thus became subject to capital punishment; in accordance with Ex. XXXI, 14-15; v. also supra p. 408 ');">²⁴</span> he would be liable,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For fivefold payment, as prescribed in Ex. XXI, 37. ');">²⁵</span>

אמר שלו הוא תובע א"ל והא מייתינא סהדי דאחזקי ביה בחיי דאבוה א"ל וכי מקבלין עדים

for he had already become liable for the theft<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So far as double payment is concerned, in accordance with ibid, XXII, 3. ');">²⁶</span> prior to his having committed the sin of violating the Sabbath<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since he had already become liable for double payment at the time of the theft, the additional threefold payment which is purely of the nature of a fine is according to this view not affected by the fact that at the time of the slaughter he was committing a capital offence, as also explained in Keth. 34b. ');">²⁷</span> but if he had a cow that was borrowed and slaughtered it on the Sabbath, he would be exempt,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From civil liability. ');">²⁸</span> for in this case the crime of [violating the] Sabbath and the crime of theft were committed simultaneously.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., at the time of the slaughter when he had to become liable also for the Principal which is a purely civil obligation and which must therefore be merged in the criminal charge; v. also supra p. 407. ');">²⁹</span> Our Rabbis taught: <i>He shall restore the misappropriated article which he took violently away.</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 23. ');">³⁰</span> What is the point of the words 'which he took violently away'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is this not redundant? ');">³¹</span> Restoration should be made so long as it is intact as it was at the time when he took it violently away. Hence it was laid down: If one misappropriated [foodstuff] and fed his children they would not be liable to repay.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the foodstuff was no longer intact. ');">³²</span> If, however, he left it to them [intact], whether they were adults or minors, they would be liable; Symmachus, however, was quoted as having ruled that [only] adults would be liable but minors would be exempt. The son<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who was a minor. ');">³³</span> of R. Jeremiah's father-in-law [once] bolted the door in the face of R. Jeremiah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who was desirous of taking possession of premises that belonged to his father-in-law. ');">³⁴</span> The latter thereupon came to complain about this to R. Abin,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' MS.M. 'R. Abba'. ');">³⁵</span> who however said to him: 'Was he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the son of the father-in-law. ');">³⁶</span> not merely asserting his right to his own?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with Num. XXVII, 8. ');">³⁷</span> But R. Jeremiah said to him: 'I can bring witnesses to testify that I took possession of the premises during the lifetime of the father.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who disposed of them to me; cf. B.B. III, 3. ');">³⁸</span> To which the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Abin or R. Abba. ');">³⁹</span> replied: 'Can the evidence of witnesses be accepted