The Gemara brings a disagreement whether a stolen Chatas atones Mi'd'Oraisa. What does the disagreement
depend on?
To me, it seems that it depends on whether the people know it was stolen or not.
Ula says Mid'Oraisa, whether or not people knew that it was stolen, it does not atone, because the thief does not acquire through the despair of the owner. Why did Chachamim enact that if it was not publicly known, it atones? This was lest Kohanim be sad (that they ate a Pasul Korban). It's asked if this is an enactment for the Mizbeach. Ula answers, if the Kohanim would be sad, they would not offer Korbanos on the Mizbe'ach. Rav Yehudah says Mid'Oraisa, whether or not people knew that it was stolen, it atones, because the thief acquired through the despair of the owner. (The thief owes only its value to the owner.) Why did Chachamim enact that if it was publicly known, it does not atone? This is lest people say that the Mizbe'ach consumes (and accepts) stolen animals. The disagreement depends on whether the people know it was stolen or not.
Dan, New York, NY, USA
1) It seems to me that the disagreement about whether the Chatas atones mid'Oraisa depends on something different. It depends on whether or not the Halachah is that the thief acquires the stolen item through the despair of the owner.
2) Ula maintains that he does not acquire the stolen Chatas through despair. Therefore, mid'Oraisa there is no atonement. Rav Yehudah maintains that he does acquire it through despair, so mid'Oraisa there is atonement.
3) The Gemara then cites different reasons for why, according to Ula, mid'Rabanan it does atone if it is not known that it was stolen, or why, according to Rav Yehudah, it does not atone if it was known to be stolen, but on the mid'Oraisa level the dispute between Ula and Rav Yehudah remains dependent on whether the owner's despair acquires the Chatas for the thief.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom