Study Bava Kamma folio 118B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
What is the reasoning of Rav Ḥisda, who holds that the requirement to return the animal with the owner’s knowledge is in the case where the owners did not know about the theft? Since the thief taught the lamb to take steps outside, i.e., to leave the owners’ property, it will now require greater s
The Talmud assumes that since Rava explained Rav Ḥisda’s reasoning, he accepts Rav Ḥisda’s ruling. The Talmud asks: But did Rava actually say this? Doesn’t Rava say that in the case of this person who saw another lift a lamb from his flock in order to steal it, and the owner then raised his voice at
The Talmud comments: What, is this statement of Rava not applicable even if the owner counted his flock after this incident? Accordingly, Rava rules that if the owner knew about the theft, the thief is rendered exempt from liability only if he returns the lamb with the owner’s knowledge, which is n
The Talmud examines Rav’s ruling. But did Rav actually say this? Doesn’t Rav say that if the thief returned the lamb to the owner’s flock that is in an unsettled area, he has fulfilled his obligation to return it? This indicates that the thief is exempt from further liability even though the thief
The Talmud suggests: Let us say that the amoraic dispute cited previously is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: One who steals a lamb from a flock or a sela from a purse must return it to the place from where he stole it; this is the statement of R' Yishmael. R' A