Bava Kamma 114 - Shabbat February 24, 15 Adar 1

Today's daf is sponsored by Amy Goldstein in loving memory of her grandmother, Ann Barnett, on her 13th yahrzeit. "She was dedicated to the Jewish People and was a lifelong Zionist, and we miss her every day."  Rava brings another law that relates to non-Jewish courts - a Jew cannot testify about a monetary case against a Jew if the court accepts the testimony of one witness as that is against Jewish law. One who does this is excommunicated. One is also excommunicated for selling a property to a gentile if it borders on the property of a Jew. For what reason is this prohibited? The Mishna says if someone steals and gives you a different item in return, or if a tax collector seized an item and replaced it with another, one can keep the item as one can assume that the original owner despaired of ever getting it back (had ye'ush), as ye'ush with a change of domain (shinui reshut) is effective to make one the owner of the item. But in other cases, the Mishna mentions that only if we know the owner despaired, then the item is acquired. How can we reconcile the difference between these two lines in the Mishna? The Mishna doesn't distinguish between genieva and gezeila and it can be derived from the first line in the Mishna that if we don't know that the owners despaired, we assume they have, in either case. This (and a braita) seem to contradict Raba's reading of a different argument in Masechet Keilim between Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis who each think that there is reason to distinguish between genieva and gezeila in this issue (each in a different way). Various answers are brought, among them they introduce a new opinion of Rebbi who equates the genieva and gezeila. Does Rebbi hold that they are the same regarding ye'ush and follow Rabbi Shimon's view on gezeila or the rabbis' opinion? The two sources brought before (our Mishna and the braita) are brought to answer the question but are rejected. A third source is brought where it proves that Rebbi holds that genieva and gezeila have the same law - like gezeila according to Rabbi Shimon and we can assume the owner despaired. A woman and minor are believed to testify about who is the owner of a swarm of bees. However, this is limited to the case where they did not testify in court but mentioned it in the context of a conversation (mesiach lefi tumo). When else can people be believed when saying something in the context of a conversation?