Bava Kamma 115 with Rabbanit Hamutal Shoval - February 25, 16 Adar 1

Today's daf is sponsored by Amy Goldstein in loving memory of her mother, Carolyn Barnett-Goldstein, on her 5th yahrzeit. "She was passionately dedicated to the Jewish People and the arts. We miss her larger-than-life presence every day, and struggle to understand that she is gone." Today's daf is sponsored by Abby Flamholz’s daughter-in-law, Sigal Spitzer Flamholz and her two granddaughters Nitzan and Orlie Flamholz in honor of Abby's birthday. "Thanks for paving the way for Talmud Torah in our family!" If one recognizes items belonging to them in someone's house and the owner of the house claims they purchased them, the owner of the house takes an oath about the purchase price and returns the item to the original owner for the value of the item. But this is only if it is known that the person was robbed. If not, there is a concern that the claimant sold the item and now regrets the sale and wants the item back. The Gemara asks why knowing the person was robbed is enough to allay the fear that they are just trying to renege on a sale? Rav explains that there needs to be some sort of circumstantial evidence that the item in question was stolen. If a thief sells a stolen item, can the one who was robbed demand the item back from the buyer or only from the thief? Rav and Rabbi Yochanan disagree. Four explanations are brought to explain the basis of their debate. The rabbis instituted takanat hashuk to protect buyers. The takana is that if someone claims that the item is theirs, they can take it back but they need to reimburse the buyer the amount that they paid so that the buyer does not need to find the thief who sold him/her the item. In what cases does the takana apply/not apply? If two people are walking and one has honey in a jar that is breaking, and the other has wine (less expensive than honey) and the wine owner dumps the wine to help save the honey, what compensation does the wine owner receive? The Gemara questions why we do not assume that the honey was already hefker (ownerless) as the owner knew it would be gone in a minute and gave up ownership of it in which case it can be considered acquired by the wine owner, as can be inferred from braita? to resolve this, they limit the case in the Mishna. The Gemara then questions the halakha in the braita based on a different braita which seems to contradict. How are they reconciled?