Bava Kamma - Daf 111
- When the money and asham are given to different mishmaros
It was taught in a Baraisa: נתן אשם ליהויריב וכסף לידעיה – If the גזלן gave the asham to the first mishmar of Yehoyariv, and the money to the second mishmar of Yedayah, Rebbe Yehudah says: יחזיר כסף אצל אשם – the money reverts to where the asham is (i.e., it is given to Yehoyariv). The Chachomim say: יחזיר אשם אצל כסף – the asham reverts to where the money is (Yedayah). The Gemara asks that if the money was given to Yedayah during their own mishmar, why would Rebbe Yehudah say that Yedayah must give the money to Yehoyariv (since they acted properly)? [The Chachomim’s position is understood, because Yehoyariv improperly accepted the asham before the money was given (as the Mishnah taught on Daf 110a)]. Rava explained that the money was given to Yedayah during Yehoyariv’s mishmar, so Rebbe Yehudah penalizes them (but the Chachomim still penalize Yehoyariv). Rebbe taught, according to Rebbe Yehudah, that if the asham is still extant, and Yehoyariv did not demand the money during their mishmar, the asham is given to Yedayah, דאחולי אחילו גבייהו – because [Yehoyariv] have waived their right to them. If Yedayah’s mishmar also passed without their demanding the asham, it reverts to the original law.
- גזל ולא נתייאשו הבעלים ובא אחר ואכלו ממנו רצה מזה גובה רצה מזה גובה
The tenth Perek begins: הגוזל ומאכיל את בניו – If one robs something and feeds it to his children, והניח לפניהם – or he left it before them intact as an inheritance, פטורין מלשלם – they are exempt from paying the owner for it. Rav Chisda said: גזל ולא נתייאשו הבעלים – If one robbed something and the owner did not despair of retrieving it, ובא אחר ואכלו ממנו – and another person came and ate it from [the robber’s] possession, רצה מזה גובה רצה מזה גובה – if he wants, he may collect from this [robber]; if he wants, he may collect from that [one who ate it]. He explains that as long as the owner has not despaired, ברשותיה דמריה קאי – it stands in the owner’s possession. Therefore, the one who ate it took it from the owner’s possession and is (also) liable. Rav Chisda is challenged from our Mishnah, which taught that the children who ate the stolen property are not liable!? He answers that the Mishnah’s case is לאחר יאוש – after the owner’s despair. Later, Rashi notes that Rami bar Chama disagrees with Rav Chisda.
- If רשות יורש כרשות לוקח
The Mishnah taught that if the father left the robbed item to his children, they are not liable to pay. Rami bar Chama said: זאת אומרת רשות יורש כרשות לוקח דמי – this teaches that an heir’s domain is like a purchaser’s domain (i.e., it constitutes a שינוי רשות – change of domain). This שינוי רשות, which follows the owner’s יאוש, enables the heirs to acquire the item and keep it. Rava said: רשות יורש לאו כרשות לוקח דמי – an heir’s domain is not like a purchaser’s domain, and the heirs do not acquire the item. The Mishnah’s case is כשאכלום – when [the heirs] consumed it after inheriting it, and it cannot be returned.
Rava’s interpretation is challenged by the Mishnah’s conclusion: אם היה דבר שיש בו אחריות חייבין לשלם – if it was real property, they must pay, which the Gemara understands to mean items which are publicly recognizable as stolen, which the children must return to protect their father’s honor. This implies the stolen item is extant!? Rava explains the Mishnah to mean they inherited land from the robber, which can be collected by the victim.
