Bava Batra 87

But [if the explanation of R. Shesheth is correct],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That we are dealing with a case where the land has been stolen. ');">¹</span>

why should the rule not be stated in reference to the robber himself?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that Simeon must not testify to the title of Reuben himself if it is challenged by a third party. The rule in fact should be stated thus: If a man wrongfully seizes a house or a field, the original owner must not testify on his behalf because the thief is responsible to him for it. ');">²</span>

— Because It was necessary to state the second clause [viz.]: 'if he sells him a cow or a garment.' For in this case the selling is essential, in order that there may be both giving up [on the part of the original owner] and change of ownership,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a man is robbed of something (other than land), he does not lose his claim to it until (a) he has given up hope of recovering it, and (b) it has changed hands. Hence until the cow or the garment is sold, Simeon still has an interest in it and therefore is debarred from giving evidence. But in the case of land, a man never loses his claim, and therefore even if the land has been sold, Simeon may not give evidence. ');">³</span>

but if the robber does not sell the article, since in this case the original owner may still recover it, he may not give evidence.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In favour of one who has obtained it from the robber, if his title is contested by a third party. ');">⁴</span>

Hence in the first clause also the 'selling' is inserted. But [is this rule sound in regard] even to the second clause? Granted that the original owner abandons his claim to the article itself, he has not abandoned his claim to the money, has he?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He still has a claim on the thief for the value of the article, and is therefore still an interested party. ');">⁵</span>

— The rule requires to be stated to cover the case where the robber has died, as we have learnt: If a man robs [someone of food] and gives it to his children to eat or bequeaths it to them, they are not under obligation to repay it. But [if this explanation is correct], why should not the rule be stated in reference to the heir [of the thief]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., in the following form: 'If a man robs another of a house and bequeaths it to his son, the original owner cannot testify etc.&nbsp;… if he robs him of a cow and bequeaths it … etc.' ');">⁶</span>

It is true, there is a reason [why it should not] if we accept the opinion that the ownership of an heir [of a thief] is not on the same footing as the ownership of a purchaser [from a thief],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that inheritance does not constitute 'change of ownership' and that an heir is liable so long as the article stolen is in his possession and the original owner has not given op hope of recovery, and therefore the owner would be an interested party even in the case of a cow, etc. ');">⁷</span>

but on the view that the ownership of the heir is on the same footing as the ownership of the purchaser, what are we to say? And Abaye finds yet another difficulty [in the explanation of R. Shesheth, viz. that the expressions] 'because he is responsible for it,' 'because he is not responsible for it' [are on this theory improperly used,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to the explanation of R. Shesheth, the expression here means that the purchaser (Levi) is responsible, but elsewhere it invariably means that the seller is responsible. ');">⁸</span> and] the Baraitha should say, 'because it may be recovered by him', 'because it cannot be recovered by him'? — We must therefore [understand the above rulings] in the light of the dictum enunciated by Rabin b. Samuel in the name of Samuel, viz. If a man sells a field to another [even] without [accepting] responsibility, he cannot give evidence as to the latter's title, because he can keep it safe for his own creditor.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 184, n. 3. ');">⁹</span> This applies only to a house or a field, but in the case of a cow or a garment, not only is there no question