## Bava Kamma Daf 111b

###### Bava Kamma 111b:1
[Bava Kamma 111b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/111b:1)

מַתְנִי׳ **הַגּוֹזֵל** וּמַאֲכִיל אֶת בָּנָיו, וְהִנִּיחַ לִפְנֵיהֶם – פְּטוּרִין מִלְּשַׁלֵּם. וְאִם הָיָה דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ אַחְרָיוּת – חַיָּיבִין לְשַׁלֵּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In the case of **one who robs** another of food **and feeds** it to **his children, or** who **left** a stolen item **to them** and then died, the children **are exempt from paying** the victim of the robbery after their father’s death. But **if** the stolen item **was something that serves** as a legal **guarantee** of a loan, the heirs **are obligated to pay.**


###### Bava Kamma 111b:2
[Bava Kamma 111b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/111b:2)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: גָּזַל וְלֹא נִתְיָיאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִים, וּבָא אַחֵר וַאֲכָלוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ – רָצָה מִזֶּה גּוֹבֶה, רָצָה מִזֶּה גּוֹבֶה. מַאי טַעְמָא? כֹּל כַּמָּה דְּלֹא נִתְיָיאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִים – בִּרְשׁוּתֵיהּ דְּמָרֵיהּ קָאֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rav Ḥisda says:** If one **robbed** another, **and the owners** of the stolen item **have not** yet **despaired** of retrieving it, **and another** person **came,** took it **from** the robber **and ate it,** if the owner **wishes he may collect from this one,** i.e., the first robber, and if **he wishes he may collect from that one,** i.e., the second robber. **What is the reason** that he may collect from whomever he chooses? It is because **as long as the owners did not despair** of retrieving it, **it remains the possession of its owner,** so that when the second robber stole it from the first, he was in fact stealing from the original owner. Nevertheless, since the first robber was already obligated to return the item, his obligation remains in force and the owner may demand payment from him if he wishes.


###### Bava Kamma 111b:3
[Bava Kamma 111b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/111b:3)

תְּנַן: הַגּוֹזֵל וּמַאֲכִיל אֶת בָּנָיו, וְהִנִּיחַ לִפְנֵיהֶם – פְּטוּרִין מִלְּשַׁלֵּם. תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב חִסְדָּא! אָמַר לְךָ רַב חִסְדָּא: כִּי תַּנְיָא הָהִיא – לְאַחַר יֵאוּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this opinion based on what **we learned** in the mishna: In the case of **one who robs** another of food **and feeds** it **to his children, or** one who **left** a stolen item **to them** as an inheritance, the children **are exempt from paying** the victim of the robbery after their father’s death. This appears to be **a conclusive refutation** of the opinion **of Rav Ḥisda,** who holds that one who steals from a thief is obligated to pay the owner. The Gemara answers: **Rav Ḥisda** could have **said to you: When that** mishna **is taught,** it is addressing a case where it is **after** the owners had already **despaired** of retrieving the item, whereas Rav Ḥisda was referring to a case where the owners had not yet despaired.


###### Bava Kamma 111b:4
[Bava Kamma 111b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/111b:4)

אִם הִנִּיחַ לִפְנֵיהֶם – פְּטוּרִין מִלְּשַׁלֵּם. אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא, זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת: רְשׁוּת יוֹרֵשׁ כִּרְשׁוּת לוֹקֵחַ דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna stated that **if one left** a stolen item **to** his children as an inheritance, the children **are exempt from paying** the owner. **Rami bar Ḥama said: That is to say** that **the domain of an heir is comparable to the domain of a purchaser.** Just as an item that is purchased leaves the domain of the seller, an item that is inherited leaves the domain of the deceased and is considered the property of the heir. Since the owner has despaired of retrieving the item and the item has changed domains, it is entirely the property of the new owner, and he is exempt from payment.


###### Bava Kamma 111b:5
[Bava Kamma 111b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/111b:5)

רָבָא אָמַר: רְשׁוּת יוֹרֵשׁ לָאו כִּרְשׁוּת לוֹקֵחַ דָּמֵי, וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּשֶׁאֲכָלוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava** disagreed and **said** that **the domain of an heir is not comparable to the domain of a purchaser.** Consequently, the item has not undergone a complete change of ownership and the heir would be required to return it. **And** as for the explanation of the mishna, **here we are dealing with** a case **where they** had already **consumed** the stolen goods, so there is nothing to return to the owner.


###### Bava Kamma 111b:6
[Bava Kamma 111b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/111b:6)

הָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: אִם הָיָה דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ אַחְרָיוּת – חַיָּיבִין לְשַׁלֵּם, מִכְּלָל דְּרֵישָׁא בִּגְזֵילָה קַיֶּימֶת עָסְקִינַן! אָמַר לָךְ רָבָא, הָכִי קָאָמַר: אִם הִנִּיחַ לָהֶם אֲבִיהֶם אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים, חַיָּיבִין לְשַׁלֵּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions the opinion of Rava: **From the fact** that **the latter clause teaches: If it was something that serves** as a legal **guarantee,** and is, therefore, an existing commodity, the heirs **are obligated to pay, it may be inferred that** in **the first clause we are** also **dealing with a stolen item that is extant.** This is contrary to Rava’s statement that the mishna is discussing stolen goods that have been consumed. The Gemara answers: **Rava** could have **said to you** that **this is** what the mishna **is saying: If their father left them guaranteed property,** i.e., land, **they are obligated to pay** from that property, even if the stolen item is not extant.


###### Bava Kamma 111b:7
[Bava Kamma 111b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/111b:7)

וְהָא מַתְנֵי לֵיהּ רַבִּי לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּרֵיהּ: לֹא דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ אַחְרָיוּת מַמָּשׁ; אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ פָּרָה וְחוֹרֵשׁ בָּהּ, חֲמוֹר וּמְחַמֵּר אַחֲרָיו – חַיָּיבִין לְהַחְזִיר, מִפְּנֵי כְּבוֹד אֲבִיהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But didn’t Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **teach Rabbi Shimon, his son,** that this mishna is **not** referring only to **something that may actually serve** as a legal **guarantee,** i.e., land? **Rather,** it is referring **even** to **a cow** that **he plows with,** or **a donkey** that **he drives** by directing it from **behind,** which the heirs **are obligated to return because of the honor of their father.** This indicates that the mishna is referring to stolen property that is extant, and not to land.


###### Bava Kamma 111b:8
[Bava Kamma 111b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/111b:8)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: כִּי שָׁכֵיבְנָא – רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא נָפֵיק לְווֹתִי, דְּתָרֵיצְנָא מַתְנִיתִין כְּווֹתֵיהּ. דְּתָנֵי רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: הַגּוֹזֵל וּמַאֲכִיל אֶת בָּנָיו – פְּטוּרִין מִלְּשַׁלֵּם. הִנִּיחַ לִפְנֵיהֶם – גְּזֵילָה קַיֶּימֶת, חַיָּיבִין; אֵין הַגְּזֵילָה קַיֶּימֶת, פְּטוּרִין. הִנִּיחַ לָהֶם אֲבִיהֶם אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים – חַיָּיבִין לְשַׁלֵּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava said: When I die, Rabbi Oshaya will come toward me** from his place in heaven in order to greet me, **as I explain the mishna in accordance with his** opinion and thereby honor him. **As Rabbi Oshaya taught** in a *baraita*: In a case of **one who robs** another **and feeds** the stolen goods to **his children,** the latter **are exempt from paying** the owner. If **he left** a stolen item **to them** as an inheritance, if **the stolen item is extant,** the heirs **are obligated** to return it to the owner; if **it is not extant,** they **are exempt.** If **their father left them guaranteed property,** i.e., land, **they are obligated to pay** the owner. Rava explains the mishna as being consistent with the *baraita* of Rabbi Oshaya, although this explanation is not consistent with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s interpretation.


###### Bava Kamma 111b:9
[Bava Kamma 111b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/111b:9)

אָמַר מָר: אֵין הַגְּזֵילָה קַיֶּימֶת – פְּטוּרִין. נֵימָא תֶּיהְוֵי תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב חִסְדָּא? אָמַר לָךְ רַב חִסְדָּא: כִּי תַּנְיָא הָהִיא – לְאַחַר יֵאוּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes the *baraita* of Rabbi Oshaya. **The Master said** in the *baraita* that if the **stolen item is not extant,** the heirs **are exempt** from payment. **Let us say that** this *baraita* **is a conclusive refutation** of the opinion **of Rav Ḥisda,** who says that heirs are obligated to pay for stolen goods that they consumed. The Gemara answers: **Rav Ḥisda** could have **said to you** that **when that** *baraita* **is taught,** it is referring to a case where it is **after** the owners had already **despaired** of retrieving the item, whereas Rav Ḥisda was referring to a case in which the owners had not yet despaired.


###### Bava Kamma 111b:10
[Bava Kamma 111b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/111b:10)

אָמַר מָר: גְּזֵילָה קַיֶּימֶת – חַיָּיבִין לְשַׁלֵּם. נֵימָא תֶּיהְוֵי תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרָמֵי בַּר חָמָא? אָמַר לָךְ רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: כִּי תַּנְיָא הָהִיא –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: **The Master said** in the *baraita* that if the **stolen item is extant,** the heirs **are obligated to pay. Let us say that** this *baraita* **is a conclusive refutation** of the opinion **of Rami bar Ḥama,** since according to his understanding, the heirs should be exempt from payment because the stolen item is considered to have changed ownership when they inherited it. The Gemara answers: **Rami bar Ḥama** could have **said to you** that **when that** *baraita* **is taught,**