I was coming back from the sea and it occurred to me something that is hard to understand in the second Tosphot on page 111 in Bava Kama. it is this. If you have a case where the owner has given up, but it is still in his domain, that is considered to be not his completely. But that is what is difficult to understand. The stolen object is considered to be totally in his domain, and yet the abandonment creates a lack or deficiency in his ownership. To be a bit clearer about what I am asking, let me bring Tosphpot. To Tosphot if the owner has given up and it has changed domain from the robber to another person, then that third person own the object completely and the owner can go after the robber alone to get repaid, not to that third person. but if there was no abandonment nor change of domain from the robber to a third person, then there is no question that the owner can go after the robber or the third person to get repaid. it is the middle case that Tosphot is saying creates in-between rate in which there can be a difference. if the object is still around, then it mut be given back to the owner. but if the stolen object is not around e.g. it was eaten, then the third party is not obligated in anything. the owner can go after the robber alone. But there are two ways, a middle state can be created. One way is there was abandonment, but no change in domain. Another is there was change in domain, but no abandonment. This last case is clear. If there was change in domain, then the owner owns the object, but it is not under his control, so if he would sanctify it, it would not be sanctified. It is that other case that I find difficult to understand. he gave up but it is still in his domain in ownership and under his control. why should that be considered a lack in ownership?-----------THERE Is something that is hard to understand in the second תוספות on page קי'א in בבא קמא. it is this. If you have a case where the owner has given up, but it is still in his domain, that is considered to be not his completely. But that is what is difficult to understand. The stolen object is considered to be totally in his domain, and yet the יאוש creates a lack or deficiency in his ownership. To be a bit clearer about what I am asking, let me bring תוספות. To תוספות if the owner has given up, and it has changed domain from the robber to another person, then that third person owns the object completely, and the owner can go after the robber alone to get repaid, not to that third person. But if there was no יאוש, nor change of domain from the robber to a third person, then there is no question that the owner can go after the robber or the third person to get repaid. it is the middle case that תוספות is saying creates in between מצבin which there can be a difference. If the object is still around, then it must be given back to the owner. But if the גזול object is not around )it was eaten(, then the third party is not obligated in anything. The owner can go after the גזלן alone. There are two ways a middle state can be created. One way is there was ייאוש, but no שינוי רשות. Another is there was שינוי רשות, but no ייאוש. This last case is clear. If there was שינוי רשות, then the owner owns the object, but it is not under his control. If he would sanctify it, it would not be sanctified. It is that other case that I find difficult to understand. יש ייאוש but it is still in his בבעלות של הבעלים המקוריים and under his control. why should that be considered a lack in ownership?