Study Bava Kamma folio 66B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
אומר לו: ״הרי שלך לפניך״. והאי, כיון דמטא עידן איסורא – ודאי מייאש; ואי סלקא דעתך יאוש קונה, אמאי אומר לו: ״הרי שלך לפניך״? דמי מעליא בעי שלומי ליה!
the robber may nonetheless return the worthless bread to the owner and say to him: That which is yours is before you, and no compensation is required. Rav Yosef states his objection: But in this case, once the time of the prohibition of leavened bread arrives, the owner certainly despairs of recovering his now-worthless bread. And if it enters your mind to say that the owner’s despair causes the robber to acquire the stolen item, why can he say to him: That which is yours is before you? He should be required to pay the owner full-fledged money rather than return the worthless food, as the bread now belongs to the robber.
אמר ליה: כי קאמינא אנא – זה מתייאש וזה רוצה לקנות; האי – זה מתייאש וזה אינו רוצה לקנות.
Rava said to him in response: When I say that the thief acquires the stolen item upon the owner’s despair of recovery it is when this owner despairs, and that thief wants to acquire the item. In this case, this one despairs but that one does not wish to acquire the worthless bread.
איתיביה אביי לרבה: ״קרבנו״ – ולא הגזול. היכי דמי? אילימא לפני יאוש, למה לי קרא? פשיטא!
Abaye raised an objection to Rabba from a baraita. The verse: “If his offering is a burnt-offering of the herd” (Leviticus 1:3), indicates that one’s offering must be “his offering,” but not an animal stolen from another. What are the circumstances of the case referred to by the baraita? If we say it is dealing with a stolen animal that the robber consecrates and sacrificed before the owner’s despair of recovery, why do I need a verse to teach this? It is obvious that this is disqualified, as one cannot even consecrate an animal that does not belong to him.