## Bava Kamma Daf 112a

###### Bava Kamma 112a:1
[Bava Kamma 112a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/112a:1)

לִפְנֵי יֵאוּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
it is referring to a case where it is **before** the owners have **despaired** of retrieving their property. Consequently, the heirs have not acquired the stolen property, and it must be returned.


###### Bava Kamma 112a:2
[Bava Kamma 112a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/112a:2)

רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה מַתְנֵי לְהָא דְּרָמֵי בַּר חָמָא אַהָא: הִנִּיחַ לָהֶן אֲבִיהֶן מָעוֹת שֶׁל רִבִּית, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיּוֹדְעִין שֶׁהֵן שֶׁל רִבִּית – אֵין חַיָּיבִין לְהַחְזִיר. אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא, זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת: רְשׁוּת יוֹרֵשׁ כִּרְשׁוּת לוֹקֵחַ דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Adda bar Ahava teaches that** statement **of Rami bar Ḥama** cited above **with regard to this** *baraita*: If **their father left them money** that he obtained by taking **interest,** which is prohibited, **even if they are aware that** the money **is** from **interest, they are not obligated to return** the money to the debtor who paid it. **Rami bar Ḥama said: That is to say** that **the domain of an heir is comparable to the domain of a purchaser,** and because the money has changed domains, the heirs have acquired it.


###### Bava Kamma 112a:3
[Bava Kamma 112a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/112a:3)

רָבָא אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ רְשׁוּת יוֹרֵשׁ לָאו כִּרְשׁוּת לוֹקֵחַ דָּמֵי, וְשָׁאנֵי הָכָא דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״אַל תִּקַּח מֵאִתּוֹ נֶשֶׁךְ וְתַרְבִּית״ – אַהְדַּר לֵיהּ, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּנֵחֵי בַּהֲדָךְ; לְדִידֵיהּ קָא מַזְהַר לֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא, לִבְרֵיהּ לָא מַזְהַר לֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: Actually, I will say to you** that **the domain of an heir is not comparable to the domain of a purchaser. And** the reason they do not have to return the money is because **it is different here, as the verse states: “Take no interest of him or increase,** but fear your God, that your brother may live with you” (Leviticus 25:36), which teaches that you must **return** the interest **to him so that he may live with you.** Since the interest is returned for this reason and not because it is considered stolen goods, it is apparent that **the Merciful One is cautioning him,** the lender, to return it, but **the Merciful One is not cautioning his son** to return it.


###### Bava Kamma 112a:4
[Bava Kamma 112a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/112a:4)

מַאן דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַבָּרַיְיתָא – כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן אַמַּתְנִיתִין. מַאן דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַמַּתְנִיתִין – אֲבָל אַבָּרַיְיתָא, רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא כְּרָבָא מַתְנֵי לַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara points out: **The one who teaches** Rami bar Ḥama’s statement **with regard to the *baraita*,** i.e., Rav Adda bar Ahava, **all the more so** would apply it **to the mishna,** since there is no other explanation for why the heirs are exempt from payment. Conversely, according to **the one who teaches** Rami bar Ḥama’s statement **with regard to the mishna,** it is limited to that case. **But with regard to the *baraita*,** he holds that **Rami bar Ḥama teaches it as** explained by **Rava,** that the heirs are not exempt from payment because the domain of an heir is comparable to the domain of a purchaser, but rather because heirs are never required to return interest.


###### Bava Kamma 112a:5
[Bava Kamma 112a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/112a:5)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַגּוֹזֵל וּמַאֲכִיל אֶת בָּנָיו – פְּטוּרִין מִלְּשַׁלֵּם. הִנִּיחַ לִפְנֵיהֶם – גְּדוֹלִים, חַיָּיבִין לְשַׁלֵּם; קְטַנִּים, פְּטוּרִין מִלְּשַׁלֵּם. וְאִם אָמְרוּ גְּדוֹלִים: אֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין חֶשְׁבּוֹנוֹת שֶׁחִשֵּׁב אָבִינוּ עִמָּךְ – פְּטוּרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 10:21): With regard to **one who robs** another of food **and feeds** it to **his children,** the children **are exempt from paying** the owner. In a case where **he left** the stolen items **to them** as an inheritance, if the heirs are **adults they are obligated to pay,** and if they are **minors they are exempt from paying. If the adult** heirs **said: We do not know** what **calculations our father made with you** and whether he paid you for the stolen goods, **they are exempt.**


###### Bava Kamma 112a:6
[Bava Kamma 112a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/112a:6)

מִשּׁוּם דְּאָמְרִי: ״אֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין״ – פְּטוּרִים?! אָמַר רָבָא: הָכִי קָאָמַר, גְּדוֹלִים שֶׁאָמְרוּ: יוֹדְעִים אָנוּ חֶשְׁבּוֹנוֹת שֶׁחִשֵּׁב אָבִינוּ עִמָּךְ, וְלָא פָּשׁ לָךְ גַּבֵּיהּ וְלָא מִידֵּי – פְּטוּרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara expresses surprise: **Because they say: We do not know,** they are **exempt?** Since it is clear that they are in possession of stolen property, how can they be exempt due to the uncertain claim that perhaps their father repaid the owner after the theft? **Rava said** that the heirs are certain about their claim and that the *baraita* should be formulated differently, and **this is** what the *baraita* **is saying:** In the case of **adult** heirs **who said** to the claimant: **We know the calculations our father made with you and there is nothing of yours left with him,** as he paid his debt to you, they **are exempt.**


###### Bava Kamma 112a:7
[Bava Kamma 112a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/112a:7)

תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: הַגּוֹזֵל וּמַאֲכִיל בָּנָיו – פְּטוּרִין מִלְּשַׁלֵּם. הִנִּיחַ לִפְנֵיהֶם וַאֲכָלוּם – בֵּין גְּדוֹלִים בֵּין קְטַנִּים, חַיָּיבִין. קְטַנִּים מִי מִיחַיְּיבִי?! לֹא יְהֵא אֶלָּא דְּאַזֵּיק אַזּוֹקֵי! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, הָכִי קָאָמַר: הִנִּיחַ לִפְנֵיהֶם וַעֲדַיִין לֹא אֲכָלוּם – בֵּין גְּדוֹלִים בֵּין קְטַנִּים, חַיָּיבִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It **is taught** in **another** *baraita*: With regard to **one who robs** another of food **and feeds** it to **his children,** the children **are exempt from paying.** If **he left** stolen items **to them** as an inheritance **and they consumed them, whether they are adults or minors, they are obligated** to pay the owner. The Gemara asks: Are **minors obligated** to pay? **Let** it **be only** like a case **where one caused damage,** and a minor who causes damage is exempt. **Rav Pappa said** that the *baraita* should be formulated differently, and **this is** what the *baraita* **is saying:** If **he left** the stolen items **to them** as an inheritance **and they did not yet consume them, whether they are adults or minors, they are obligated** to return the stolen items, since the items are still extant.


###### Bava Kamma 112a:8
[Bava Kamma 112a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/112a:8)

אָמַר רָבָא: הִנִּיחַ לָהֶם אֲבִיהֶם פָּרָה שְׁאוּלָה – מִשְׁתַּמְּשִׁין בָּהּ כׇּל יְמֵי שְׁאֵלָתָהּ. מֵתָה – אֵין חַיָּיבִין בְּאוֹנְסֶיהָ. כִּסְבוּרִים שֶׁל אֲבִיהֶם הִיא, וּטְבָחוּהָ וַאֲכָלוּהָ – מְשַׁלְּמִין דְּמֵי בָשָׂר בְּזוֹל. הִנִּיחַ לָהֶם אֲבִיהֶם אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים – חַיָּיבִין לְשַׁלֵּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says:** In the case of children whose **father** died and **left them a cow** that he had **borrowed, they may use it for the entire duration of its loan.** Nevertheless, if it **died, they are not liable** to pay if its death was caused by **an unavoidable accident,** despite the fact that a borrower is liable for damage caused by an unavoidable accident. This is because liability for accidental damage pertains only to the actual borrower, i.e., the deceased father. If the children **thought that it** actually **belonged to their father and they slaughtered it and ate it, they** are liable to **pay** the owner **the value of inexpensive meat.** Rava adds: If **their father left them guaranteed property,** i.e., land, **they are liable to pay.**


###### Bava Kamma 112a:9
[Bava Kamma 112a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/112a:9)

אִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַרֵישָׁא, וְאִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַסֵּיפָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **Some teach this** final statement of Rava **with regard to the first clause,** which states that the heirs are exempt from payment for accidental damage. According to this interpretation, if the father left them land, they are obligated to pay for the cow if it dies due to unavoidable accident. **And some teach it with regard to the latter clause,** which states that heirs who slaughter and consume a cow must pay the owner the value of inexpensive meat. According to this interpretation, if the father left them land, they must pay for the full value of the cow.


###### Bava Kamma 112a:10
[Bava Kamma 112a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/112a:10)

מַאן דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַרֵישָׁא – כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן אַסֵּיפָא, וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַב פָּפָּא. מַאן דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַסֵּיפָא – אֲבָל אַרֵישָׁא לָא, וְהַיְינוּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The one who teaches it with regard to the first clause** holds it to be true **all the more so with regard to the latter clause,** where the heirs actually consumed the meat themselves. **And,** accordingly, this understanding **differs** with the forthcoming opinion **of Rav Pappa.** By contrast, **the one who teaches it with regard to the latter clause** holds it to be true in that clause exclusively, **but with regard to the first clause,** it is **not** true. **And this is** consistent with the forthcoming opinion of **Rav Pappa.**


###### Bava Kamma 112a:11
[Bava Kamma 112a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/112a:11)

דְּאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הָיְתָה פָּרָה גְּנוּבָה לוֹ, וּטְבָחָהּ בְּשַׁבָּת – חַיָּיב; שֶׁכְּבָר חַיָּיב בִּגְנֵיבָה, קוֹדֶם שֶׁיָּבֹא לִידֵי אִיסּוּר שַׁבָּת. הָיְתָה פָּרָה שְׁאוּלָה לוֹ, וּטְבָחָהּ בְּשַׁבָּת – פָּטוּר; שֶׁאִיסּוּר שַׁבָּת וְאִיסּוּר גְּנֵיבָה בָּאִין כְּאֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As Rav Pappa says:** If **he had a stolen cow** in his possession, **and he slaughtered it on Shabbat,** he is **liable** to pay **because he was already rendered liable** for the **theft before he came to** transgress the **Shabbat prohibition** of slaughtering an animal on Shabbat. But if **he had a borrowed cow** in his possession **and he slaughtered it on Shabbat,** he is **exempt** from payment, **as** the transgression of **the Shabbat prohibition** of slaughtering an animal on Shabbat **and the prohibition against theft** occur **as one,** as the act of slaughter is tantamount to the theft of the animal. This indicates that according to Rav Pappa, a borrower’s liability to pay for accidental damage is initiated only when the damage is inflicted. Accordingly, in the case discussed by Rava, since the damage was not inflicted during the father’s lifetime, the deceased’s property was never liened to the cow’s owner, and consequently the heirs are not obligated to pay for any accidental damage.


###### Bava Kamma 112a:12
[Bava Kamma 112a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/112a:12)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְהֵשִׁיב אֶת הַגְּזֵילָה אֲשֶׁר גָּזָל״; מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֲשֶׁר גָּזָל״? יַחֲזִיר כְּעֵין שֶׁגָּזַל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
After having cited two *baraitot* that express different opinions with regard to the obligation of heirs to pay for property stolen by their deceased father, the Gemara cites a third *baraita* that presents both opinions. **The Sages taught** with regard to the verse: “Then it shall be, if he has sinned, and is guilty, **that he shall restore the item that he robbed”** (Leviticus 5:23); **what** is the meaning when **the verse states “that he robbed”?** It means that the robber must **return the same** item **that he robbed.**


###### Bava Kamma 112a:13
[Bava Kamma 112a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/112a:13)

מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ: הַגּוֹזֵל וּמַאֲכִיל אֶת בָּנָיו – פְּטוּרִין מִלְּשַׁלֵּם. הִנִּיחַ לִפְנֵיהֶן – בֵּין גְּדוֹלִים בֵּין קְטַנִּים, חַיָּיבִין. מִשּׁוּם סוֹמְכוֹס אָמְרוּ: גְּדוֹלִים חַיָּיבִין, קְטַנִּים פְּטוּרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**From here,** based on this exposition, the Sages **stated:** In a case of **one who robs** another of food **and feeds** it to **his children,** the children are **exempt from paying** the owner. If **he left** stolen goods **to them** as an inheritance, **whether they are adults or minors, they are obligated** to return the stolen goods. **They said in the name of Sumakhos:** If the heirs are **adults** they **are obligated,** but if they are **minors** they **are exempt.**


###### Bava Kamma 112a:14
[Bava Kamma 112a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/112a:14)

בַּר חֲמוּהּ דְּרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה טְרַק גַּלָּא בְּאַפֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אָבִין,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara recounts a related incident: **The son of Rabbi Yirmeya’s father-in-law,** i.e., his wife’s brother, who was a minor, **shut the doors** of his father’s house **before Rabbi Yirmeya** in order to prevent Rabbi Yirmeya from establishing legal possession of the house or a chamber that he claimed belonged to him. Rabbi Yirmeya **came before Rabbi Avin** to file a legal claim against his brother-in-law.


###### Bava Kamma 112a:15
[Bava Kamma 112a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/112a:15)

אָמַר: שֶׁלּוֹ הוּא תּוֹבֵעַ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְהָא מַיְיתִינָא סָהֲדִי דְּאַחְזַקִי בֵּיהּ בְּחַיֵּי דַּאֲבוּהּ! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְכִי מְקַבְּלִין עֵדִים

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Avin **said** to Rabbi Yirmeya: Your brother-in-law is **claiming** ownership of that which is **his,** since he retains the presumptive ownership of his father’s house upon his father’s death. Rabbi Yirmeya **said to him: But I can bring witnesses who can testify that I took possession of it during his father’s lifetime.** Rabbi Avin **said to him: But does** the court **accept witnesses**