Rav Shizvi makes what seems like a ridiculous statement, and his colleagues laugh at him. Rava, his disputant, comes to Rav Shizvi’s defense. Let’s examine this exchange, in Gittin 55a.
As background, say a thief stole something. Does the prior owner’s realization and abandonment of hope (yei’ush) suffice to transfer the item to the thief’s legal possession, as a matter of Biblical law, or must there also be a change in the item, either a transformation of the object itself or a sale to a third party?
Rava brought as evidence a Mishnah (Bava Kamma 74a) about a thief who stole an animal and then consecrated it.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Scribal Error to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.