Bava Kamma 222

מתני׳ <big><strong>הגוזל</strong></big> ומאכיל את בניו והניח לפניהם פטורין מלשלם ואם היה דבר שיש בו אחריות חייבין לשלם:

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. R. Hisda said: If one misappropriated [an article] and before the owner gave up hope of recovering it, another person came and consumed it, the owner has the option of collecting payment from either the one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the one who robbed him. ');">¹</span> or the other,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the one who later on consumed the article. ');">²</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רב חסדא גזל ולא נתייאשו הבעלים ובא אחר ואכלו ממנו רצה מזה גובה רצה מזה גובה מאי טעמא כל כמה דלא נתייאשו הבעלים ברשותיה דמריה קאי

the reason being that so long as the owner did not give up hope of recovery, the misappropriated article is still in the ownership of the original possessor.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. J. Ter. VII, 3. ');">³</span> But we have learnt: IF ONE MISAPPROPRIATED [FOODSTUFF] AND FED HIS CHILDREN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the one who robbed him. ');">¹</span>

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. ');">⁴</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. ');">⁵</span>

אם הניח לפניהם פטורין מלשלם: אמר רמי בר חמא זאת אומרת רשות יורש כרשות לוקח דמי

Raba, however, said the possession of an heir is not on a par with the possession of a purchaser,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The article could therefore not rightly remain with the heirs though it would have remained with a purchaser. ');">⁶</span> for here we are dealing with a case where the food was consumed [after the father's death].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But if still intact it would go back to the proprietor. ');">⁷</span>

רבא אמר רשות יורש לאו כרשות לוקח דמי והכא במאי עסקינן כשאכלום

But since it is stated in the concluding clause, BUT IF THERE WAS ANYTHING [LEFT] WHICH COULD SERVE AS SECURITY<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Now assumed to denote garments and similar conspicuous articles, as would be the case with real property. ');">⁸</span> THEY WOULD BE LIABLE TO PAY<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the sake of honouring their father. ');">⁹</span>

הא מדקתני סיפא אם היה דבר שיש בו אחריות חייבין לשלם מכלל דרישא בגזילה קיימת עסקינן אמר לך רבא הכי קאמר אם הניח להם אביהם אחריות נכסים חייבין לשלם

does it not imply that even in the earlier clause<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which states the law in the case of inconspicuous articles such as food and the like. ');">¹⁰</span> we are dealing with a case where the misappropriated article was still in existence?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the heirs seem nevertheless to have the right to retain it. ');">¹¹</span>

והא מתני ליה רבי לרבי שמעון בריה לא דבר שיש בו אחריות ממש אלא אפילו פרה וחורש בה חמור ומחמר אחריו חייבין להחזיר מפני כבוד אביהן

Raba could however say to you that what is meant is this: If their father left them property constituting [legal] security<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., realty. ');">¹²</span> they would be liable to pay.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the father's realty became legally mortgaged for the liability arising out of the robbery he committed. ');">¹³</span>

אלא אמר רבא כי שכיבנא ר' אושעיא נפיק לוותי דתריצנא מתני' כוותיה דתני רבי אושעיא הגוזל ומאכיל את בניו פטורין מלשלם הניח לפניהם גזילה קיימת חייבין אין הגזילה קיימת פטורין הניח להם אביהם אחריות נכסים חייבין לשלם

But did Rabbi not teach<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 113a. ');">¹⁴</span> his son R. Simeon that 'ANYTHING WHICH COULD SERVE AS SECURITY should not [be taken literally to] mean actual security, for even if he left a cow to plough with or an ass to be driven,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But in the case of inconspicuous things such as food and the like, the heirs would be entitled to retain them. ');">¹⁵</span>

אמר מר אין הגזילה קיימת פטורין נימא תיהוי תיובתא דרב חסדא אמר לך רב חסדא כי תניא ההיא לאחר יאוש

they would be liable to restore it, to save their father's good name? — Raba therefore said: When I pass away R. Oshaia will come out to meet me,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.M. 62b. ');">¹⁶</span> since I am explaining the Mishnaic text in accordance with his teaching, for R. Oshaia taught: Where he misappropriated [foodstuff] and fed his children, they would not have to make restitution. If he left it to them [as an inheritance] so long as the misappropriated article is in existence they will be liable, but as soon as the misappropriated article is no more intact they will be exempt. But if their father left them property constituting [legal] security they would be liable to pay.

אמר מר גזילה קיימת חייבין לשלם נימא תיהוי תיובתא דרמי בר חמא אמר לך רמי בר חמא כי תניא ההיא

The Master stated: 'As soon as the misappropriated article is no more intact they would be exempt.' Should we not say that this is a contradiction to the view of R. Hisda?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to whom the person who consumed the misappropriated article could also be called upon to pay. ');">¹⁷</span> — R. Hisda could say to you that the ruling [here] applies subsequent to Renunciation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the foodstuff was consumed after the proprietor had resigned himself to the loss of it completely. ');">¹⁸</span> The Master said: 'So long as the misappropriated article is in existence they will be liable to pay.' Should we not say that this is a contradiction to the view of Rami b. Hama?<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. 652; v. also B.B. 44a. ');">¹⁹</span> — But Rami b. Hama could say to you that this teaching