Bava Kamma

GEMARA. R. Hisda said: If one misappropriated [an article] and before the owner gave up hope of recovering it, another person came and consumed it, the owner has the option of collecting payment from either the one  or the other,  the reason being that so long as the owner did not give up hope of recovery, the misappropriated article is still in the ownership of the original possessor.  But we have learnt: IF ONE MISAPPROPRIATED [FOODSTUFF] AND FED HIS CHILDREN  [WITH IT], OR LEFT [IT] TO THEM [AS AN INHERITANCE], THEY WOULD NOT BE LIABLE TO MAKE RESTITUTION. Now, is this not a contradiction to the view of R. Hisda? — R. Hisda might say to you that this holds good only after the owner has given up hope. [IF HE] LEFT [IT] TO THEM [AS AN INHERITANCE], THEY WOULD NOT BE LIABLE TO MAKE RESTITUTION. Rami b. Hama said: This [ruling] proves that the possession of an heir is on the same footing in law as the possession of a purchaser;  Raba, however, said the possession of an heir is not on a par with the possession of a purchaser,  for here we are dealing with a case where the food was consumed [after the father's death].  But since it is stated in the concluding clause, BUT IF THERE WAS ANYTHING [LEFT] WHICH COULD SERVE AS SECURITY  THEY WOULD BE LIABLE TO PAY  does it not imply that even in the earlier clause  we are dealing with a case where the misappropriated article was still in existence?  Raba could however say to you that what is meant is this: If their father left them property constituting [legal] security  they would be liable to pay.  But did Rabbi not teach  his son R. Simeon that 'ANYTHING WHICH COULD SERVE AS SECURITY should not [be taken literally to] mean actual security, for even if he left a cow to plough with or an ass to be driven,  they would be liable to restore it, to save their father's good name? — Raba therefore said: When I pass away R. Oshaia will come out to meet me,  since I am explaining the Mishnaic text in accordance with his teaching, for R. Oshaia taught: Where he misappropriated [foodstuff] and fed his children, they would not have to make restitution. If he left it to them [as an inheritance] so long as the misappropriated article is in existence they will be liable, but as soon as the misappropriated article is no more intact they will be exempt. But if their father left them property constituting [legal] security they would be liable to pay. The Master stated: 'As soon as the misappropriated article is no more intact they would be exempt.' Should we not say that this is a contradiction to the view of R. Hisda?  — R. Hisda could say to you that the ruling [here] applies subsequent to Renunciation. The Master said: 'So long as the misappropriated article is in existence they will be liable to pay.' Should we not say that this is a contradiction to the view of Rami b. Hama?  — But Rami b. Hama could say to you that this teaching