Bava Kamma

applies prior to Renunciation. R. Adda b. Ahabah read the statement of Rami b. Hama with reference to the following [teaching]:  'If their father left them money acquired from usury they would not have to restore it even though they [definitely] know that it came from usury. [And it was in connection with this that] Rami b. Hama said that this proves that the possession of an heir is on the same footing as the possession of a purchaser,  whereas Raba said: I can still maintain that the possession of an heir is not on the same footing as the possession of a purchaser, for here there is a special reason, as Scripture states: Take thou no usury of him or increase but fear thy God that thy brother may live with thee  [as much as to say.] 'Restore it to him so that he may live with thee.' Now, it is the man himself who is thus commanded  by the Divine Law, whereas his son is not commanded  by the Divine Law. Those who attach the argument  to the Baraitha  would certainly connect it also with the ruling of our Mishnah,  but those who attach to our Mishnah might maintain that as regards the Baraitha  Rami b. Hama expounds it in the same way as Raba. Our Rabbis taught: If one misappropriated [foodstuff] and fed his children, they would not be liable to repay. If, however, he left it [intact] to them, then if they are adults they would be liable to pay, but if minors they would be exempt. But if the adults pleaded: 'We have no knowledge of the accounts which our father kept with you.' they also would be exempt. But how could they become exempt merely because they plead.'We have no knowledge of the accounts which our father kept with you'?  Said Raba: What is meant is this, 'If the adults pleaded: "We know quite well the accounts which our father kept with you and are certain that there was no balance in your favour" they also would be exempt.'Another [Baraitha] taught: If one misappropriated [foodstuff] and fed his children, they would not be liable to repay. If, however, he left it [intact] to them and they consumed it, whether they were adults or minors, they would be liable. But why should minors be liable? They are surely in no worse a case than if they had wilfully done damage?  — Said R. Papa: What is meant is this: If, however he left it [intact] before them and they had not yet consumed it, whether they were adults or minors, they would be liable. Raba said:  If their father left them a cow which was borrowed by him, they may use it until the expiration of the period for which it was borrowed, though if it [meanwhile] died they would not be liable for the accident.  If they were under the impression that it was the property of their father, and so slaughtered it and consumed it, they would have to pay for the value of meat at the cheapest price.  If their father left them property that forms a [legal] security, they would be liable to pay. Some connect this [last ruling] with the commencing clause,  but others connect it with the concluding clause.  Those who connect it with the commencing clause  would certainly apply it to the concluding clause  and thus differ from R. Papa.  whereas those who connect it with the concluding clause  would not apply it in the case of the commencing clause,  and so would fall in with the view of R. Papa.  for R. Papa stated:  If one had a cow that he had stolen and slaughtered it on the Sabbath,  he would be liable,  for he had already become liable for the theft  prior to his having committed the sin of violating the Sabbath  but if he had a cow that was borrowed and slaughtered it on the Sabbath, he would be exempt,  for in this case the crime of [violating the] Sabbath and the crime of theft were committed simultaneously. Our Rabbis taught: He shall restore the misappropriated article which he took violently away.  What is the point of the words 'which he took violently away'?  Restoration should be made so long as it is intact as it was at the time when he took it violently away. Hence it was laid down: If one misappropriated [foodstuff] and fed his children they would not be liable to repay.  If, however, he left it to them [intact], whether they were adults or minors, they would be liable; Symmachus, however, was quoted as having ruled that [only] adults would be liable but minors would be exempt. The son  of R. Jeremiah's father-in-law [once] bolted the door in the face of R. Jeremiah.  The latter thereupon came to complain about this to R. Abin,  who however said to him: 'Was he  not merely asserting his right to his own?'  But R. Jeremiah said to him: 'I can bring witnesses to testify that I took possession of the premises during the lifetime of the father.'  To which the other  replied: 'Can the evidence of witnesses be accepted