Version #2 - Rav Ada bar Ahavah - (Beraisa): If Reuven collected Ribis, and he died, even if his children know that the money was from Ribis, they need not return it.

(Rami bar Chama): This teaches that heirs are like buyers.

Rejection (Rava): Really, heirs are not like buyers;

Ribis is different, because it says "do not take from him interest and Ribis (and your brother will live with you" - return it to him in order that he will live with you;

The Torah commanded only the lender, but not his son.

Rav Ada bar Ahavah says that Rami bar Chama derived from the Beraisa of Ribis that heirs are like buyers. All the more so, he may derive this from our Mishnah (the heirs may keep the money, even though no verse teaches this);

Version #1 says that Rami bar Chama derived from our Mishnah that heirs are as buyers. He would not derive this from the Beraisa, like Rava's objection.

(Beraisa #1): If one stole and fed his children (what he stole), they are exempt;

If he left the theft in front of them, if they are adults, they are liable. If they are minors, they are exempt.

If his adult children say 'we do not know our father's dealings with you', they are exempt.

Objection: Why do they exempt themselves by saying this?!

Correction (Rava): Rather, if they say 'we know our father's dealings with you. He did not owe you anything', they are exempt.

(Beraisa #2): If one stole and fed his children, they are exempt;

If he left the theft in front of them and they ate, whether they are adults or minors, they are liable.

Objection: Why are minors liable? This is no worse than damage, for which they are exempt!

Correction (Rav Papa): Rather, if he left the theft in front of them and they did not yet eat it, whether they are adults or minors, they are liable.

(Rava): If Reuven borrowed a cow and died, leaving it to his children, they may use it as long as Reuven borrowed it for. If it dies through Ones, they are exempt.

If they thought it was their father's and slaughtered and ate it, they pay a discounted price for the meat (two thirds of the standard price).

If Reuven left them property with Achrayus, they are liable.

Version #1: This refers to the first law (if it dies through Ones, they are exempt).

Version #2: This refers to the second law (if they ate it, they pay a discounted price for the meat).

Version #1 surely agrees to (the law of) Version #2, and argues with Rav Papa (below);

Version #2 argues with Version #1, like Rav Papa;

(Rav Papa): If Reuven stole a cow and slaughtered it on Shabbos, he pays (five cows), because he was liable even before he transgressed Shabbos;

If he borrowed a cow and slaughtered it on Shabbos, he is exempt, because the theft and transgression of Shabbos come simultaneously.

(Beraisa): "He will return the stolen object that he stole" it must be like he stole. From here, Chachamim learned that if one stole and fed his children, they are exempt;

If he left the theft in front of them, whether they are adults or minors, they are liable;

Sumchus says, adults are liable and minors are exempt.

The son of R. Yirmiyah's father-in-law (was a minor; he) locked the door to prevent R. Yirmiyah from making a Chazakah on his father's house (after his father died). R. Yirmiyah came before R. Avin.

R. Avin: The son is justified. It is his house!

R. Yirmiyah: I have witnesses that I made a Chazakah on the house in his father's lifetime (it was a gift or sale)!

R. Avin: We do not accept witnesses in the defendant's absence. A minor is not considered to be present!

Question (Beraisa): (If he left the theft in front of them) whether they are adults or minors, they are liable. (This shows that we accept testimony about minors!)

Answer (R. Avin): Sumchus argues, and exempts minors (because we do not accept testimony against them).

R. Yirmiyah: Do you hold like Sumchus, to deprive me of my house?

The case came to R. Avahu.

R. Avahu: R. Oshiya ruled that if a child took someone's slaves and claimed them, we do not wait until he matures. Rather, we return the slaves immediately. When the child matures, he can bring witnesses.

Question: There is different, for the child had no Chazakah on the slaves. Here, the child is in place of his father, who had a Chazakah on the house!

(Rav Ashi): We accept witnesses in the defendant's absence.

Objection (R. Yochanan): We do not accept witnesses in the defendant's absence!

Answer (R. Yosi bar Chanina): If the claiming party is sick, or if the witnesses must leave town, and the defendant was summonsed and did not come, we accept witnesses in his absence.

(Rav Yehudah citing Shmuel): We accept witnesses in the defendant's absence.

(Mar Ukva): Shmuel said this only when they opened the case (the litigants made their claims in front of Beis Din), one side later brought witnesses, and the other side did not come;

If they did not open the case, he can say that he wants to go to the great Beis Din (in Eretz Yisrael).

Question: Even if the case was opened, the defendant can say that he wants to go to the great Beis Din!

Answer (Ravina): The case is, the great Beis Din sent a letter saying that the local Beis Din should judge the case.

(Rav): We validate documents in the absence of a party to the document;

(R. Yochanan): We do not validate documents in the absence of a party to the document.

(Rav Sheshes): R. Yochanan learns from "(if) testimony was given (that an ox gored) in front of the owner, and he will not guard it" - the owner must be there.

(Rava): The Halachah is, we validate documents in the absence of a party to the document (Reuven), and even if he protests;

If he requests time to find witnesses that can discredit the document, we grant him time.

If he does not come (with witnesses nor to pay), we warn him three times, Monday, Thursday, and Monday;

If he still does not come, we write a Pesichah (document of excommunication).

For 90 days, we do not confiscate his property (to pay his debt).

The first 30 days, we assume that he is trying to borrow the money.

The next 30 days, we suppose that perhaps he is trying to sell things to raise the money.

The last 30 days, we suppose that perhaps he found a buyer, but the buyer has not yet raised the money.

If he does not come within 90 days, we write an Adrachta (a document authorizing the lender (Shimon) to take Reuven's property for payment).

All this applies only if Reuven said that he would come. If he said that he would not come, we write an Adrachta immediately.

All this applies only regarding a loan. Regarding a deposit, we write an Adrachta immediately.

We write an Adrachta only against land, but not on Metaltelim. We are concerned lest Shimon consume them, and Reuven will later bring witnesses discrediting the document, and Shimon will not have anything to return to him.

If Shimon has land, we may write an Adrachta on Reuven's Metaltelim. We are not concerned lest Shimon not have anything to return to him.

Rejection: Even if he has land, we do not write an Adrachta on Metaltelim, lest Shimon cause the land to decrease in value.

We do not write an Adrachta on Reuven's Metaltelim before informing him, but only if he is nearby;

Even if he is far away, but we can inform him through relatives or caravans that will go to where he is and return, we wait up to 12 months to inform him.

Ravina made Acha wait 12 months before writing an Adrachta for him, until a caravan went to and returned from Bei Chuzai.

Rejection: Acha was an exception. He was powerful. When he receives an Adrachta, it is impossible to retrieve property from him;

Normally, we wait (on Monday) only if a Shali'ach can reach Reuven on Tuesday and return on Wednesday, so Beis Din can finish the case on Thursday.

(Ravina): A Shali'ach of Beis Din is believed like two witnesses.

This is only regarding excommunication (if he says that Reuven refuses to come), but not to write a Pesichah, for this will cost Reuven money. He must pay the scribe when he wants to end the excommunication.