Bava Kamma

it would not be necessary to be so particular.  But he might perhaps have been in need of money and thus compelled to sell [some of his articles]? — Said R. Ashi: There is the fact that a rumour of burglary in his place had been current in town. It was stated: Where articles were stolen and sold by the thief who was subsequently identified, Rab in the name of R. Hiyya said that the owner would have to sue the first,  whereas R. Johanan in the name of R. Jannai said that he would have to sue the second.  R. Joseph thereupon said: There is no conflict of opinion:  in the one case where the purchase took place before Renunciation  he could sue the second,  whereas in the other, where it took place after Renunciation  he would have to sue the first;  and both of them  adopt the view expressed by R. Hisda.  Abaye said to him: Do they  indeed not differ? Is the case of endowments to priests  not on a par with [a purchase taking place] before Renunciation  and there is nevertheless here a difference of opinion? For we learnt: If one asked another to sell him the inside of a cow in which there were included priestly portions he would have to give it to the priest without deducting anything from the [purchase] money; but if he bought it from him by weight he would have to give the portions to the priests and deduct their value from the [purchase] money.  And Rab thereupon said that the [last] ruling could not be explained except where it was the purchaser who weighed it for himself, for if the butcher  weighed it for him, the priest would have to sue the butcher!  — Read: 'He can sue also the butcher,'  for you might have thought that priestly portions are not subject to the law of robbery;  we are therefore told [here that this is not so]. But according to Abaye who stated that there was a difference of opinion between them,  what is that difference? — Whether or not to accept the statement of R. Hisda.  R. Zebid said: [They differed in regard to a case] where, e.g., the proprietor abandoned hope of recovering the articles when they were in the hands of the purchaser, but did not give up hope so long as they were in the hands of the thief, and the point at issue between them was that while one master  maintained that it was only Renunciation followed by a change of possession that transfers ownership,  whereas if the change of ownership has preceded Renunciation  no ownership is thereby transferred,  the other master  maintained that there is no distinction.  R. Papa said: Regarding the garment itself  there could be no difference of opinion at all, as all agree that it will have to be restored to the proprietor.  Where they  differ here is as to whether the benefit of market overt  is to be applied to him. Rab in the name of R. Hiyya said that he  has to sue the first; i.e., the claim of the purchaser for recovery of his money is against the thief, as the benefit of market overt does not apply here,  whereas R. Johanan stated in the name of R. Jannai that he  may sue the second, i.e., the claim of the purchaser for repayment should be against the proprietors since the benefit of market overt does apply also here.  But does Rab really maintain that the benefit of market overt should not apply here?  Was R. Huna not a disciple of Rab  and yet when Hanan the Wicked  misappropriated a garment and sold it and was brought before R. Huna, he said to the plaintiff, 'Go forth and redeem your pledge [in the purchaser's hand]'?  — The case of Hanan the Wicked was different, for since it was impossible to get any payment from him, it was the same as where the thief was not identified at all. Raba said: 'Where the thief is notorious, the benefit of [a purchase in] market overt would not apply.  But was Hanan the Wicked not notorious, and yet the benefit of [a purchase in] market overt still applied? — He was only notorious for wickedness, but for theft he was not notorious at all. It was stated: If a man misappropriated [articles] and paid a debt [with them], or if he misappropriated [them] and paid for goods he received on credit, the benefit of [a purchase in] market overt will not apply, for we are entitled to say,  'Whatever credit you gave him was not in return for these stolen articles.' If he pledged them for a hundred, their value being two hundred, the benefit of [a purchase in] market overt would apply. But if their value equalled the amount of money lent on them, Amemar said that the benefit of market overt would not apply  whereas Mar Zutra said that the benefit of [a purchase in] market overt should apply. (The established law is that the benefit of a purchase in market overt should apply.)  In the case of a sale, where the money paid was the exact amount of the value of the goods, the benefit of [a purchase in] market overt would certainly apply. But where goods of the value of a hundred were bought for two hundred R. Shesheth said that the benefit of [a purchase in] market overt should not apply,  whereas Raba said that the benefit of [a purchase in] market overt should apply. The established law in all these cases, however, is that the benefit of [a purchase in] market overt should apply, with the exception of the cases where one misappropriated [articles] and paid a debt with them, and where one misappropriated them and paid for goods received on credit. Abimi  b. Nazi, the father-in-law of Rabina had owing to him four zuz  from a certain person. The latter stole a garment and brought it to him [as a pledge] and borrowed on it four further zuz. As the thief was subsequently identified, the case came before Rabina  who said: Regarding the former [four zuz] it is a case of a thief misappropriating articles and paying a debt [with them] in which case the plaintiff has to pay nothing whatsoever,  whereas regarding the latter four zuz you can demand your money and [then] return the garment. R. Cohen demurred: Why not say that the garment was delivered in consideration of the first four zuz [exclusively], so that it would thus be a case of misappropriating articles and paying [with them] a debt, or misappropriating articles and paying [with them] for goods [received] on credit, whereas the further advance of the last four zuz was a matter of mere trust,  just as he trusted him at the very outset? After being referred from one authority to another, the matter reached the notice of R. Abbahu who said that the law was in accordance with R. Cohen. A Narashean  misappropriated a book and sold it to a Papunian  for eighty zuz, and this papunian went and sold it to a Mahozean  for a hundred and twenty zuz. As the thief was subsequently identified Abaye said that the proprietor of the book could come and pay the Mahozean eighty zuz  and get his book back, and the Mahozean would be entitled to go and recover the other forty zuz  from the papunian.  Raba demurred saying: If in the case of a purchase from the thief himself the benefit of market overt applies should this not be the more so in the case of a purchase from a purchaser?  — Raba therefore said: The proprietor of the book can go and pay the Mahozean a hundred and twenty zuz  and get back his book, and the proprietor of the book is [then] entitled to go and recover forty zuz from the papunian  and eighty zuz from the Narashean. MISHNAH. IF ONE MAN WAS COMING ALONG WITH A BARREL OF WINE AND ANOTHER WITH A JUG OF HONEY, AND THE BARREL  OF HONEY HAPPENED TO CRACK, AND THE OTHER ONE POURED OUT HIS WINE AND RESCUED THE HONEY INTO HIS [EMPTY] BARREL,