On the last few lines of Bava Kama 111b a question is asked on rami bar Chama from Rabbi O'Shaya's beraisa which states that if the stolen item is intact the "yorshim" are "chayavin" while according to Rami bar Chama they should be "peturin"?
The gemara answers that this Beraysa is speaking before "ye'ush"?
Why doesn't Rami bar Chama answer simply that the Beraysa is speaking of a case where the stolen object is intact and is recognizable that it is a stolen item and because of respect for their father (the thief)they are "chayavin" as we saw earlier in the sugya that Rami bar Chama holds that even though there's "ye'ush" and "shinu reshus" so that the stolen would normally be acquired by the "yorshim" nevertheless where the item is recognized as a stolen item Rami bar Chama agrees that the "yorshim" are "chayavin"?
Why does Rami bar Chama give a forced answer that the Beraysa is speaking before "ye'ush" which in turn forces us to say that Rami bar Chama also argues with Rav Chisda (as Rashi points out)?
Thank you.
allen schuldenfrei, baltimore, maryland USA
If the sons are only liable in a case where the stolen object is intact and is recognizable that it is a stolen item, then we would not have to differentiate between Gezeilah Kayemes and Ein Gezeilah Kayemes. We could say that if it is not a recognizable object they are Patur. Hence the Gemara prefers to say we are talking before Ye'ush. Tosfos (DH Rav) alludes to a similar answer to a different question on Rav from this Beraisa.
After writing the above, I found that both the Pnei Yehoshua and Rebbi Akiva Eiger ask your question and do not answer it at all. In fact Rebbi Akiva Eiger says that it is Tzarich Iyun Gadol. This is because they both infer from Tosfos that although Tosfos indeed alludes to the above answer as being a potential answer, Tosfos in fact holds that it is not sufficient.
Dov Freedman