Source: http://halakhah.com/babakamma/babakamma_112.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 02:14:38+00:00

Document:
For the mere transfer of possession, if the owner has not yet given up hope, is surely of no avail.
Tosef. B.M. V, 8; ibid. 62a and supra 94b.
And since there was here a change of possession the heirs are under no liability.
Between Rami b. Hamah and Raba.
Dealing with robbery where there is no apparent reason for the exemption except the view of Rami b. Hama.
I.e., on the strength of the inference from Lev. XXV, 36.
For since they know of the robbery and the liability is definite, how could they be released by a plea of uncertainty as to the payment; cf. Rashi a.l. but also B.K. X, 7.
In which case they are exempt; cf. supra 87a.
As the liabilities of the contract do not pass to them at least so long as they have not started using it; v. however H.M. 341 where no distinction is made.
Which is generally estimated to be two-thirds of the ordinary price; cf. B.B. 146b; v. also supra p. 98.
Dealing with the case where the cow died of itself.
Stating the law where it was slaughtered and consumed by them.
As there is certainly more liability where they slaughtered the cow than where it died of itself.
Whose ruling is going to be stated soon.
V. p. 655, n. 8.
V. p. 655. n. 7.
For fivefold payment, as prescribed in Ex. XXI, 37.
So far as double payment is concerned, in accordance with ibid, XXII, 3.
And since he had already become liable for double payment at the time of the theft, the additional threefold payment which is purely of the nature of a fine is according to this view not affected by the fact that at the time of the slaughter he was committing a capital offence, as also explained in Keth. 34b.
I.e., at the time of the slaughter when he had to become liable also for the Principal which is a purely civil obligation and which must therefore be merged in the criminal charge; v. also supra p. 407.
For the foodstuff was no longer intact.
Who was desirous of taking possession of premises that belonged to his father-in-law.
I.e., the son of the father-in-law.
In accordance with Num. XXVII, 8.
Who disposed of them to me; cf. B.B. III, 3.
I.e., R. Abin or R. Abba.
where the other party is not present?'1 And why not? Was it not stated: 'Whether adults or minors they would be liable'?2 — The other rejoined: 'Is not the divergent view of Symmachus3 under your nose?'4 He5 retorted: 'Has the whole world made up its mind6 to adopt the view of Symmachus just in order to deprive me of my property? Meanwhile the matter was referred from one to another till it came to the notice of R. Abbahu7 who said to them: Have you not heard of what R. Joseph b. Hama reported in the name of Oshaia? For R. Joseph b. Mama said that R. Oshaia stated: If a minor collected his slaves and took possession of another person's field claiming that it was his, we do not say, Let us wait till he come of age, but we wrest it from him forthwith and when he comes of age he can bring forward witnesses [to support his allegation] and then we will consider the matter? — But what comparison is there? In that case we are entitled to take it away from him because he had no presumptive title to it from his father, but in a case where he has such a presumptive title from his father, this should surely not be so.
R. Ashi8 said that R. Shabbathai stated: [Evidence of] witnesses may be accepted even though the other party to the case is not present. Thereupon R. Johanan remarked in surprise:9 Is it possible to accept evidence of witnesses if the other party is not present? R. Jose b. Hanina accepted from him the ruling [to apply] in the case where e.g., [either] he10 was [dangerously] ill, or the witnesses were [dangerously] ill, or where the witnesses were intending to go abroad, and11 the party in question was sent for but did not appear.
Rab Judah said that Samuel stated that [evidence of] witnesses may be accepted even if the other party is not present. Mar Ukba, however, said: It was explained to me in so many words from Samuel that this is so only where e.g., the case has already been opened [in the Court] and the party in question was sent for but did not appear, whereas if the case has not yet been opened [in the Court] he might plead: 'I prefer to go to the High Court of Law'.12 But if so even after the case had already been opened why should he similarly not plead: 'l prefer to go to the High Court of Law'? — Said Rabina: [This plea could not be put forward where] e.g., the local Court is holding a writ [of mandamus] issued by the High Court of Law.
And a minor is considered in law as absent to all intents and purposes. For a different description of the case cf. J. Sanh. III, 9.
To restore misappropriated articles inherited by them to the legitimate proprietor.
Who releases the minor heirs.
According to R. Isaiah Berlin, this must have been an earlier R. Ashi since R. Johanan refers to this statement, but, as becomes evident from J. Sanh., III. 9, the authority here mentioned was either R. Jose or more correctly R. Assi. A similar confusion is found in Ta'an. 14a. Bek. 25a a.e.
I.e., the plaintiff; cf. H.M. 28. 16.
Whether 'and' or 'or' should be read here, cf. Tosaf. a.l. and on B.K. 39a; the text in J. Sanh. III. 9, however, confirms the former reading.
In the Land of Israel; cf. supra p. 67 and Sanh. 31b.
Either by taking oral evidence or by collating the signatures; cf. Keth. II. 3-4.
As a rule for thirty days; cf. B.M. 118a.
I.e., three sittings of the Court; cf. supra p. 466.
I.e., a warrant, containing also a writ of anathema. It was, besides, the opening of preliminary legal proceedings.
Who might perhaps have bought some of his property.
Lit. 'tracing and authorisation', i.e., a legal order to trace the debtor's property for the purpose of having it seized and assessed to the creditor for his debt; v. B.M. (Sonc. ed.) p. 95. n. 8.
For the bailee has no right to detain the deposit for any period of time whatsoever.
For the immovable possessions of the creditor safeguard the repayment to the debtor, should occasion arise.
And would not suffice to meet the repayment.
Within ten parasangs i.e. forty mil, the walking distance of one day, as in M.K. 21b; see Tur, H.M. 98, 9; cf. however Maim. Yad, Malweh we-Loweh, XXII, 4.
So Tur. loc. cit., but Maim. loc. cit. reads 'the second day'.
When stating that the party refuses to appear before the Court.
V. supra p. 659, n. 2.
For the usher would then have to corroborate his statements by some further evidence.
Lit., 'give a fixed date'.

References: v. 
 v. 

V. 

V. 
 v. 
 v. 

V.