Bava Kamma 112A

לפני יאוש.

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.

רב אדא בר אהבה מתני להא דרמי בר חמא אהא: הניח להן אביהן מעות של רבית, אף על פי שיודעין שהן של רבית ⁠– אין חייבין להחזיר. אמר רמי בר חמא, זאת אומרת: רשות יורש כרשות לוקח דמי.

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.

רבא אמר: לעולם אימא לך רשות יורש לאו כרשות לוקח דמי, ושאני הכא דאמר קרא: ״אל תקח מאתו נשך ותרבית״⁠ – אהדר ליה, כי היכי דנחי בהדך; לדידיה קא מזהר ליה רחמנא, לבריה לא מזהר ליה רחמנא.

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 God is cautioning him, the lender, to return it, but God is not cautioning his son to return it.

מאן דמתני לה אברייתא ⁠– כל שכן אמתניתין. מאן דמתני לה אמתניתין ⁠– אבל אברייתא, רמי בר חמא כרבא מתני לה.

The Talmud 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 Mishnah, 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 Mishnah, 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.