Study Bava Kamma folio 112A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
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.
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 deb
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
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
§ A baraita states (Tosefta 10:21): With regard to one who robs another of food and feeds it to his children, the children are exempt from paying the owner. In a case where he left the stolen items to them as an inheritance, if the heirs are adults they are obligated to pay, and if they are minors