Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 12, 2016 | ื˜ืณ ื‘ืืœื•ืœ ืชืฉืขืดื•

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Bava Kamma 104

The mishna assumes that one who swears falsely is the one who needs to ensure that he gets what he stoleย directly to the one who he stole from. ย But that if he stole but didn’t swear about it, it would be sufficient to send in the hands of a messenger. ย The gemara questions how this fits in or doesn’t with an argument Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva have regarding one who stole and five people claim he stole from them and he doesn’t know which one is the one he stole from. ย Three different answers are brought. ย The gemara then discusses an argument between Rav Hisda and Rabba about a case where one sent a messenger to receive his loan payment (for example) and appointed the messenger in front of witnesses, would this mean that the messenger is receiving it on his behalf and the borrowerย is no longer responsible if something happens to the money on the way or is the messenger just there to make it easier for the borrowerย to get the money back to the original owner but is not in fact assuming responsibility. ย and if the item gets lost/stolen on the way the borrower would need to repay the loan. ย The nature of the payment of the one fifth is discussed – is it a gift to the one who was robbed in order to effect atonement for the robber or is it a financial payment? ย Ramifications are also brought.

Study Guide Bava Kamma 103

ืฉื›ื‘ืจ ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžืคื™ ืขืฆืžื•

as he has already admitted his obligation on his own. Rabbi Tarfon concedes that a robber who wishes to repent must go to any length to return the stolen item to its owner. If the mishna here is in accordance with his opinion, it should not have stated its ruling specifically in a case where the robber took a false oath.

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืฉืื ื™ ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื“ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื™ื“ืข ืœืžืืŸ ื’ื–ืœื™ื” ื•ืื•ื“ื™ ืœื™ื” ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืืคืฉืจ ืœืื”ื“ื•ืจื™ ืžืžื•ื ื ืœืžืจื™ื” ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ื›ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื™ื”ื™ื• ืœื™ ื‘ื™ื“ืš ื”ืœื›ืš ื ืฉื‘ืข ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืงืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื™ื”ื™ื• ืœื™ ื‘ื™ื“ืš ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื‘ืขื™ ื›ืคืจื” ืœื ืกื’ื™ ืขื“ ื“ืžื˜ื™ ืœื™ื“ื™ื” ื”ื ืœื ืื™ืฉืชื‘ืข ื”ื•ื™ ื’ื‘ื™ื” ืคืงื“ื•ืŸ ืขื“ ื“ืืชื™ ื•ืฉืงื™ืœ ืœื™ื”

Rather, Rava said: The case of the mishna is different, and the halakha stated here could be in accordance with the opinions of both Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva. For as the robber knows whom he robbed and admitted to him that he robbed him, since it is possible to return the money to its owner, the robbery victim is as the one who says to the robber: The money you owe me will be kept in your possession as a deposit for me. Therefore, in a case where the robber took a false oath, even though the owner is considered to have said to him: The money you owe me will be kept in your possession as a deposit for me, since the robber requires atonement for his false oath, it is not possible for him to achieve atonement until the money reaches the possession of the robbery victim. But in a case where the robber did not take a false oath, the money is considered as a deposit given to the robber until the owner comes and takes it.

ืœื ื™ืชืŸ ืœื ืœื‘ื ื• ื•ืœื ืœืฉืœื•ื—ื• ืื™ืชืžืจ ืฉืœื™ื— ืฉืขืฉืื• ื‘ืขื“ื™ื ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืืžืจ ื”ื•ื™ ืฉืœื™ื— ืจื‘ื” ืืžืจ ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ืฉืœื™ื—

ยง The mishna teaches that if the robber wishes to return the stolen item, he may not give the payment to the robbery victimโ€™s son to return it to the robbery victim, nor to his agent. The Gemara comments: It was stated with regard to an agent who was appointed in the presence of witnesses to collect a debt from another: Rav แธคisda said: Such an agent is a legally recognized agent, so that the debtor is considered to have repaid his debt as soon as he transfers the money to the agent, and the debtor will not be held responsible if an accident occurs causing the loss of the money before the agent gives it to the creditor. Rabba said: Such an agent is not a legally recognized agent, and the debtor remains responsible until the money reaches the creditorโ€™s possession.

ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืืžืจ ื”ื•ื™ ืฉืœื™ื— ืœื”ื›ื™ ื˜ืจื—ื™ ื•ืื•ืงืžื™ื” ื‘ืขื“ื™ื ื“ืœื™ืงื• ื‘ืจืฉื•ืชื™ื” ืจื‘ื” ืืžืจ ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ืฉืœื™ื— ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืื™ื ื™ืฉ ืžื”ื™ืžื ื ื”ื•ื ืื™ ืกืžื›ืช ืกืžื•ืš ืื™ ื‘ืขื™ืช ืœืฉื“ื•ืจื™ื” ื‘ื™ื“ื™ื” ืฉื“ืจ ื‘ื™ื“ื™ื”

The Gemara explains their respective opinions: Rav แธคisda said that he is an agent because it was for this reason that the creditor took the trouble and appointed the agent in the presence of witnesses, in order to place the matter under the agentโ€™s domain. Rabba said that he is not an agent because this is what the creditor is assumed to be saying to the debtor: This individual is a trustworthy person. If you are willing to rely on him, then rely on him to convey the payment to me. Similarly: If you wish to send the debt in his possession, then send it in his possession.

ืชื ืŸ ื”ืฉื•ืืœ ืืช ื”ืคืจื” ื•ืฉื™ืœื—ื” ื‘ื™ื“ ื‘ื ื• ื‘ื™ื“ ืขื‘ื“ื• ื‘ื™ื“ ืฉืœื•ื—ื• ืื• ื‘ื™ื“ ื‘ื ื• ื‘ื™ื“ ืขื‘ื“ื• ื‘ื™ื“ ืฉืœื•ื—ื• ืฉืœ ืฉื•ืืœ ื•ืžืชื” ืคื˜ื•ืจ

The Gemara cites a mishna that poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav แธคisda. We learned in a mishna (Bava Metzia 98b): With regard to one who enters into an agreement to borrow a cow from another, and the owner sent it to the borrower in the possession of his own son, or in the possession of his own slave, or in the possession of his own agent, or if he sent it in the possession of the borrowerโ€™s son, or in the possession of the borrowerโ€™s slave, or in the possession of the borrowerโ€™s agent, and the cow died, the borrower is exempt from paying for the cow, as it never entered his possession.

ื”ืื™ ืฉืœื•ื—ื• ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ ื“ืœื ืขืฉื” ื‘ืขื“ื™ื ืžื ื ื™ื“ืขื™ื ืŸ ืืœื ื“ืขืฉื” ื‘ืขื“ื™ื ื•ืงืชื ื™ ื“ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืงืฉื™ื ืœืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื

The Gemara explains the case of the mishna: With regard to this agent of the borrower, what are the circumstances surrounding his appointment? If the mishna is discussing a case where he did not appoint him as his agent in the presence of witnesses, how do we know that he was appointed as an agent? Rather, it must be that it is a case where he appointed him as his agent in the presence of witnesses, and yet the mishna teaches that the borrower is exempt. This poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav แธคisda, who holds that one acquires property through his agent. According to his reasoning, the borrower should be held responsible for the cow once it reaches the possession of the agent.

ื›ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ื‘ืฉื›ื™ืจื• ื•ืœืงื™ื˜ื• ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื‘ืฉื›ื™ืจื• ื•ืœืงื™ื˜ื•

The Gemara answers: It is as that which Rav แธคisda said concerning a different mishna: This is stated with regard to his hired hand or his regular harvester; here also the mishna in Bava Metzia is with regard to his hired hand or his regular harvester. The mishna discusses a case where there were no witnesses to the appointment of the agent, and therefore it does not pose a difficulty to the opinion of Rav แธคisda. Yet, since it is well known that this person is constantly in the ownerโ€™s service, he is assumed to be acting as his agent.

ืชื ืŸ ืœื ื™ืชืŸ ืœื ืœื‘ื ื• ื•ืœื ืœืฉืœื•ื—ื• ื”ืื™ ืฉืœื•ื—ื• ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ ื“ืœื ืขืฉืื• ื‘ืขื“ื™ื ืžื ื ื™ื“ืขื™ื ืŸ ืืœื ืœืื• ื“ืขืฉืื• ื‘ืขื“ื™ื ืชืจื’ืžื ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ื‘ืฉื›ื™ืจื• ื•ืœืงื™ื˜ื•

The Gemara poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav แธคisda from the mishna here. We learned in the mishna: If the robber wishes to return the stolen item, he may not give the payment to the robbery victimโ€™s son to return it to the robbery victim, nor to his agent. With regard to this agent of the robbery victim, what are the circumstances surrounding his appointment? If the mishna is discussing a case where the robbery victim did not appoint him as his agent in the presence of witnesses, how do we know that he was appointed as an agent? Rather, is it not discussing a case where the robbery victim appointed him as his agent in the presence of witnesses, and the robber nevertheless does not fulfill his obligation to return the stolen item by giving it to this agent? The Gemara answers: Rav แธคisda interpreted the ruling of the mishna with regard to his hired hand or his regular harvester, who do not require witnesses to validate their appointment as his agent.

ืื‘ืœ ืฉืœื™ื— ืฉืขืฉืื• ื‘ืขื“ื™ื ืžืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ื”ื•ื™ ืฉืœื™ื— ืื“ืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ืื‘ืœ ื ื•ืชืŸ ื”ื•ื ืœืฉืœื™ื— ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืœืคืœื•ื’ ื•ืœื™ืชื ื™ ื‘ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ืฉืœื™ื— ืฉืขืฉืื• ื‘ืขื“ื™ื ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ื”ื•ื™ ืฉืœื™ื—

The Gemara asks: But with regard to an agent who the robbery victim appointed in the presence of witnesses, what is the halakha? Would one say that indeed, one appointed before witnesses is a legally recognized agent? If that is the case, instead of teaching in the latter clause: But he may give the payment to an agent of the court, which indicates that this is the only agent to whom he may give it, let the mishna make a distinction within the case of an agent appointed by the robbery victim itself and teach: An agent who the robbery victim appointed in the presence of witnesses is indeed a legally recognized agent. If an agent appointed in the presence of witnesses is a legally recognized agent, why does the mishna shift to discuss an agent of the court?

ืืžืจื™ ืœื ืคืกื™ืงื ืœื™ื” ืฉืœื™ื— ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื ืฉื ื ืขืฉืื• ื ื’ื–ืœ ื•ืœื ืฉื ื ืขืฉืื• ื’ื–ืœืŸ ื”ื•ื™ ืฉืœื™ื— ืคืกื™ืงื ืœื™ื” ืฉืœื™ื— ืฉืขืฉืื• ื‘ืขื“ื™ื ื“ื›ื™ ืขืฉืื• ื ื’ื–ืœ ื”ื•ื ื“ื”ื•ื™ ืฉืœื™ื— ืขืฉืื• ื’ื–ืœืŸ ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ืฉืœื™ื— ืœื ืคืกื™ืงื ืœื™ื”

The Sages say in response: Although the tanna of the mishna could have stated the case of an agent appointed by the robbery victim in the presence of witnesses, he could not have stated this halakha definitively, as with regard to an agent of the court, there is no difference whether the robbery victim appointed him as an agent, i.e., the court appointed him at the behest of the robbery victim, and there is no difference whether the robber appointed him as an agent, i.e., the court appointed him at the behest of the robber. In both cases he is a legally recognized agent. Therefore, he could state the halakha concerning an agent of the court definitively. By contrast, with regard to an agent who was appointed in the presence of witnesses, that only when the robbery victim appointed him as an agent he is an agent, but when the robber appointed him as an agent, he is not an agent, as the robber cannot appoint an agent to receive payment on behalf of the robbery victim, he could not have stated this halakha definitively.

ื•ืœืืคื•ืงื™ ืžื”ืื™ ืชื ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืœื™ื— ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉืขืฉืื• ื ื’ื–ืœ ื•ืœื ืขืฉืื• ื’ื–ืœืŸ ืื• ืขืฉืื• ื’ื–ืœืŸ ื•ืฉืœื— ื”ืœื” ื•ื ื˜ืœ ืืช ืฉืœื• ืžื™ื“ื• ืคื˜ื•ืจ

The Gemara comments: And this mishna, which rules that an agent of the court is an agent even if appointed only by the robber, serves to exclude the opinion of this following tanna, as it is taught in the Tosefta (10:11) that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: If there was an agent of the court who was appointed by the robbery victim but not appointed by the robber, or an agent who was appointed by the robber, and subsequently the other, i.e., the robbery victim, sent for and took his payment from the agentโ€™s possession, the robber is exempt from paying for any accidental damage to the payment during the delivery. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar states that the robber is exempt from paying for any accidental damage when he gave the payment to a court agent he appointed only if the robbery victim sent for and took possession of the payment. This is in opposition to the ruling of the mishna that the robber is exempt whenever he gives the payment to an agent of the court.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื“ืืžืจื™ ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ืฉืœื™ื— ืฉืขืฉืื• ื‘ืขื“ื™ื ื”ื•ื™ ืฉืœื™ื— ื•ืื ืชืืžืจ ืžืฉื ืชื ื•

The Gemara cites the opinion of two other amoraโ€™im with regard to the status of an agent appointed in the presence of witnesses. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan and Rabbi Elazar both say: An agent who was appointed in the presence of witnesses is a legally recognized agent. And if you say: Our mishna contradicts this assertion, as it rules that the stolen item is not considered returned if given to an agent of the robbery victim, this is of no concern.

ื‘ืžืžืฆื™ื ืœื• ืฉืœื™ื— ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ืช ืœื™ ื–ื•ื–ื™ ื’ื‘ื™ ืคืœื ื™ื ื•ืœื ืงื ืžืฉื“ืจ ืœื”ื• ืื™ืชื—ื–ื™ ืœื™ื” ื“ืœืžื ืื™ื ื™ืฉ ื”ื•ื ื“ืœื ืžืฉื›ื— ืœืฉื“ื•ืจื™ ืœื™ื”

The Gemara explains: The mishna does not mean to disqualify an agent appointed by the robbery victim in the presence of witnesses, but rather is referring to a case where the robbery victim provides the robber with an agent without appointing him in the presence of witnesses, in that he says to someone: I have money owed to me that is currently with so-and-so, and he is not sending it. Present yourself to him, as perhaps he wishes to return it but cannot find a person with whom to send it.

ืื™ ื ืžื™ ื›ื“ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ื‘ืฉื›ื™ืจื• ื•ืœืงื™ื˜ื•

The Gemara offers a second explanation: Alternatively, it is in accordance with the statement of Rav แธคisda, that the mishna is not discussing a case where he appointed the agent in the presence of witnesses, but it is still known that the agent acts on behalf of the robbery victim, as the ruling of the mishna is stated with regard to the victimโ€™s hired hand or his regular harvester. That is why the robber is still liable after having given the payment to the agent.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ

ยง The Gemara discusses another matter relating to the appointment of an agent. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says:

ืื™ืŸ ืžืฉืœื—ื™ืŸ ืžืขื•ืช ื‘ื“ื™ื•ืงื ื™ ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืขื“ื™ื ื—ืชื•ืžื™ื ืขืœื™ื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืื ืขื“ื™ื ื—ืชื•ืžื™ื ืขืœื™ื” ืžืฉืœื—ื™ืŸ

One who owes a debt may not send money with another to the creditor on the basis of a figure [deyokani] or sign used in place of a signature that is associated with the creditor. The possession of this sign on the part of the other is not sufficient proof that he has been appointed as an agent. And this is the halakha even if witnesses verifying that this is the creditorโ€™s sign are signed on it. And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: If there are witnesses signed on it, one may send the money with the other.

ืืžืจื™ ืœืฉืžื•ืืœ ืžืื™ ืชืงื ืชื ื›ื™ ื”ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื ื”ื•ื™ ืžืกื™ืง ื–ื•ื–ื™ ื‘ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื‘ืจ ื—ืžื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ ืกืคืจื ื‘ื”ื“ื™ ื“ืืชื™ืช ืื™ื™ืชื™ื ื”ื• ื ื™ื”ืœื™ ื›ื™ ืื–ืœ ืœื”ืชื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ืžื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืœืš ื”ืชืงื‘ืœืชื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื–ื™ืœ ื‘ืจื™ืฉื ื•ื™ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืœืš ื”ืชืงื‘ืœืชื™

The Sages say: According to Shmuel, what is the rectification, i.e., what recourse is available to one who wishes to collect a debt without traveling to the debtorโ€™s location? The Gemara answers: One may act like that course of action of Rabbi Abba, who was owed money by Rav Yosef bar แธคama. Rabbi Abba said to Rav Safra: When you come back from Rabbi Yosef bar แธคamaโ€™s locale, bring my money to me. When Rav Safra went there, Rava, Rav Yosef bar แธคamaโ€™s son, said to him: Did Rabbi Abba write you a document stating: I have received payment, so that my father will have proof that he has absolved himself of the debt? Rav Safra said to him: No. Rava responded: If so, first go to him and let him write you a document stating: I have received payment, and then my father will pay you.

ืœืกื•ืฃ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืœืš ื ืžื™ ื”ืชืงื‘ืœืชื™ ืœืื• ื›ืœื•ื ื”ื•ื ื“ืœืžื ืื“ืืชื™ืช ืฉื›ื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื ื•ื ืคืœื• ื–ื•ื–ื™ ืงืžื™ ื™ืชืžื™ ื•ื”ืชืงื‘ืœืชื™ ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื ืœืื• ื›ืœื•ื ื”ื•ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื•ืืœื ืžืื™ ืชืงื ืชื ื–ื™ืœ ื ืงื ื™ื ื”ื• ืœืš ืื’ื‘ ืืจืขื ื•ืชื ืืช ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืœืŸ ื”ืชืงื‘ืœืชื™

Ultimately, Rava said to him: Even if he writes you a document stating: I have received payment, it is nothing, since perhaps by the time you arrive back here, Rabbi Abba will have died and the money will fall before his orphans as an inheritance, and the document stating: I have received payment, that was written by Rabbi Abba, will be nothing, as the debt is no longer owed to him, but rather, to his heirs. Rav Safra said to him: Rather, what is the rectification? Rava replied: Go, and Rabbi Abba will transfer to you the rights to the money owed to him by means of acquisition of land from him, and then you should come and write for us a document stating: I have received payment. Then, we will pay you.

ื›ื™ ื”ื ื“ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื”ื•ื” ืžืกื™ืง ืชืจื™ืกืจ ืืœืคื™ ื–ื•ื–ื™ ื‘ื™ ื—ื•ื–ืื™ ืืงื ื™ื ื”ื• ื ื™ื”ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ืื’ื‘ ืืกื™ืคื ื“ื‘ื™ืชื™ื” ื›ื™ ืืชื ื ืคืง ืœืืคื™ื” ืขื“ ืชื•ืืš

The Gemara notes: And this is like that course of action of Rav Pappa, who was owed twelve thousand dinars by a resident of Bei แธคozai, and he transferred his claim to the money to Rav Shmuel bar Abba by means of the acquisition of the threshold of his house. When Rav Shmuel bar Abba came from Bei แธคozai with the money in hand, Rav Pappa went out as far as Tavakh toward him in his excitement to receive the money.

ื ืชืŸ ืœื• ืืช ื”ืงืจืŸ ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืืœืžื ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืžืžื•ื ื ื”ื•ื ื•ืื ืžื™ื™ืช ืžืฉืœืžื™ ืœื™ื” ื™ื•ืจืฉื™ืŸ

ยง The mishna teaches that if the robber gave the robbery victim the principal value of the stolen item, but did not give him the additional one-fifth payment required of a robber, he is not required to pursue the robbery victim in order to return the additional one-fifth payment. The Gemara comments: Apparently, the additional one-fifth payment is considered monetary restitution rather than a fine. And accordingly, if the robber died, the heirs of the robber must pay it to the robbery victim.

ื•ืชื ืŸ ื ืžื™ ื ืชืŸ ืืช ื”ืงืจืŸ ื•ื ืฉื‘ืข ืขืœ ื”ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื”ืจื™ ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืขืœ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืืœืžื ื—ื•ืžืฉื ืžืžื•ื ื ื”ื•ื

And we also learned in the mishna that if the robber gave the robbery victim the principal and takes a false oath to him concerning the additional one-fifth payment, asserting that he had already paid it, the robber adds an additional one-fifth payment apart from the additional one-fifth payment about which he had taken a false oath. Apparently, the additional one-fifth payment is monetary restitution, as one is obligated to pay an additional one-fifth for taking a false oath only with regard to monetary restitution, not with regard to fines.

ื•ืชื ื™ื ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื”ื’ื•ื–ืœ ืืช ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื•ื ืฉื‘ืข ืœื• ื•ืžืช ื™ื•ืจืฉื™ืŸ ืžืฉืœืžื™ื ืงืจืŸ ื•ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื•ืคื˜ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืžืŸ ื”ืืฉื

And this is also taught in a baraita: With regard to one who robs another and takes a false oath to him that he did not rob him, and then dies, his heirs pay the principal and additional one-fifth payments to the robbery victim, but are exempt from the obligation to bring the guilt-offering.

ื•ื™ื•ืจืฉื™ืŸ ื‘ื ื™ ืฉืœื•ืžื™ ื—ื•ืžืฉื ื“ืื‘ื•ื”ื•ืŸ ื”ื•ื• ืืœืžื ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืžืžื•ื ื ื”ื•ื ื•ื‘ืขื™ ืฉืœื•ืžื™ ื™ื•ืจืฉื™ืŸ ื•ืจืžื™ื ื”ื• ืขื“ื™ื™ืŸ ืื ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืžืชื™ ืื™ื ื• ืžืฉืœื ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืขืœ ื’ื–ืœ ืื‘ื™ื• ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉืœื ื ืฉื‘ืข ืœื ื”ื•ื ื•ืœื ืื‘ื™ื•

The Gemara asks: But are heirs obligated to pay the additional one-fifth payment of their father, indicating that apparently the additional one-fifth payment is monetary restitution, and therefore the heirs must pay it? But one could raise a contradiction from a baraita. After having stated that one is required to add the additional one-fifth payment only for a robbery he commits himself, and not for a robbery committed by his father, the baraita states: I would still say that when does an heir not pay the additional one-fifth payment for his fatherโ€™s robbery? It is only when neither he nor his father took a false oath.

ื”ื•ื ื•ืœื ืื‘ื™ื• ืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืœื ื”ื•ื ื”ื•ื ื•ืื‘ื™ื• ืžื ื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืืฉืจ ื’ื–ืœ ื•ืืฉืจ ืขืฉืง ื•ื”ื•ื ืœื ื’ื–ืœ ื•ืœื ืขืฉืง

But if he took a false oath, but not his father; or if his father took a false oath, but not he; or if he and his father both took false oaths; from where is the heirโ€™s exemption derived? The verse states: โ€œHe shall restore the item that he robbed,โ€ and โ€œthe item that he has acquired through exploitationโ€ (Leviticus 5:23), and in this case the heir did not rob and did not exploit. Since the verse states the obligation to pay the additional one-fifth payment when discussing one who robbed or exploited another, and the heir has done neither, he is exempt from payment. This baraita states that heirs are not obligated to pay the additional one-fifth payment.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื›ืืŸ ืฉื”ื•ื“ื” ื›ืืŸ ืฉืœื ื”ื•ื“ื”

The Gemara answers: Rav Naแธฅman said that it is not difficult. Here, in the mishna and the first baraita, they discuss a case where the robber admitted his obligation and therefore was required to pay the additional one-fifth payment, and this obligation is transferred to his heir; there, in the latter baraita, it discusses a case where he did not admit his obligation and was never required to pay the additional one-fifth payment.

ืื™ ืœื ื”ื•ื“ื” ืงืจืŸ ื ืžื™ ืœื ืžืฉืœื ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ืœื ืžืฉืœื ื•ื”ื ืžื“ืงื ืžื”ื“ืจ ืื—ื•ืžืฉ ืœืžื™ืžืจื ื“ืงืจืŸ ืžืฉืœื

The Gemara rejects this answer: If the latter baraita discusses a case where he did not admit his obligation, then the halakha would be that the heir would not pay even the principal, as the obligation is not known by anyone. And if you would say that indeed it is so that he does not pay the principal, but isnโ€™t it understood from the fact that the tanna searches for a source to teach the heirโ€™s exemption from only the additional one-fifth payment, that it means to say that he does pay the principal.

ื•ืขื•ื“ ืชื ื™ื ื•ืขื“ื™ื™ืŸ ืื ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืžืชื™ ื”ื•ื ืžืฉืœื ืงืจืŸ ืขืœ ื’ื–ืœ ืื‘ื™ื• ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื ืฉื‘ืข ื”ื•ื ื•ืื‘ื™ื• ืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืœื ื”ื•ื ื”ื•ื ื•ืœื ืื‘ื™ื• ืœื ื”ื•ื ื•ืœื ืื‘ื™ื• ืžื ื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื’ื–ื™ืœื” ื•ืขื•ืฉืง ืื‘ื™ื“ื” ื•ืคืงื“ื•ืŸ ื™ืฉ ืชืœืžื•ื“

The Gemara also proves that the heir must pay the principal from the continuation of the same baraita. And further, it is taught in that baraita: And I would still say: When does the heir pay the principal for his fatherโ€™s robbery? It is only when he and his father both took false oaths. But if his father took a false oath, and not he; or if he took a false oath, but not his father; or if neither he nor his father took false oaths; from where is the heirโ€™s obligation to pay the principal derived? The verse states the following terms: โ€œRobbery,โ€ and โ€œexploitation,โ€ โ€œlost item,โ€ and โ€œdepositโ€ (Leviticus 5:23); and there is a derivation [yesh talmud] here to derive that the heir is obligated to pay the principal in all of these cases.

ื•ื™ืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื•ืงืืžืจ ืœื”ื ืฉืžืขืชื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจื™ื” ื™ืฉ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืงืืžืจ ืžืจ ืื• ื™ืฉืชืœืžื• ืงืืžืจ ืžืจ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื™ืฉ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืงืืžื™ื ื ื•ืžืจื™ื‘ื•ื™ื ื“ืงืจืื™ ืืžืจื™

The Gemara clarifies: And Rav Huna sat and stated this halakha, and Rabba, his son, said to him: Was the Master saying that there is a derivation [yesh talmud], or was the Master saying that they will be paid [yishtalmu]? Rav Huna said to him: I am saying: There is a derivation, and it is from the additional expressions in the verses that I say it can be derived. It is apparent that an heir is obligated to pay the principal, and this refutes Rav Naแธฅmanโ€™s attempted resolution.

ืืœื ืžืื™ ืœื ื”ื•ื“ื” ืœื ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื‘ื™ื• ื•ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ื ื•

Rather, what did Rav Naแธฅman mean when he suggested that the second baraita is referring to a case where he did not admit his obligation and exempts his heir from paying the additional one-fifth but obligates him to pay the principal? The baraita is referring to a case where the father did not admit, but his son did admit, and therefore he is obligated to pay the principal.

ื•ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ื ื• ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ืืžืจื™ ื‘ืฉืื™ืŸ ื’ื–ื™ืœื” ืงื™ื™ืžืช ืื™ ื‘ืฉืื™ืŸ ื’ื–ื™ืœื” ืงื™ื™ืžืช ืืคื™ืœื• ืงืจืŸ ื ืžื™ ืœื ืžืฉืœื ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ืื—ืจื™ื•ืช

The Gemara asks: And let his son be liable to pay the additional one-fifth payment for his own false oath. The Sages say: In the case of the baraita, it is where the stolen item is no longer extant. Although the false oath was taken, it is not the type of obligation for which one must pay an additional one-fifth payment. The Gemara asks: If in the case of the baraita it is where the stolen item is no longer extant, the halakha should be that the heir does not pay even the principal, as the halakha is that while heirs must return an item stolen by their father, they are not obligated to compensate the owner if the item is no longer extant. The Gemara answers: No, the ruling is necessary in a case where there is guaranteed property, i.e., land, which the heirs inherited from the robber. Heirs are obligated to compensate the owner of a stolen item with inherited land, even if the stolen item itself is no longer extant.

ื•ื›ื™ ืื™ื›ื ืื—ืจื™ื•ืช ื ื›ืกื™ื ืžืื™ ื”ื•ื™ ืžืœื•ื” ืขืœ ืคื” ื”ื™ื ื•ืžืœื•ื” ืขืœ ืคื” ืื™ื ื• ื’ื•ื‘ื” ืœื ืžืŸ ื”ื™ื•ืจืฉื™ืŸ ื•ืœื ืžืŸ ื”ืœืงื•ื—ื•ืช

The Gemara asks: And even when there is guaranteed property, i.e., land, what of it? After all, such a debt is legally considered a loan by oral agreement, and the creditor of a loan by oral agreement cannot collect from the heirs of the debtor, nor can he collect from those who purchased land from the debtor.

ืืžืจื™

The Sages say in response:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Kamma 104

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 104

ืฉื›ื‘ืจ ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžืคื™ ืขืฆืžื•

as he has already admitted his obligation on his own. Rabbi Tarfon concedes that a robber who wishes to repent must go to any length to return the stolen item to its owner. If the mishna here is in accordance with his opinion, it should not have stated its ruling specifically in a case where the robber took a false oath.

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืฉืื ื™ ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื“ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื™ื“ืข ืœืžืืŸ ื’ื–ืœื™ื” ื•ืื•ื“ื™ ืœื™ื” ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืืคืฉืจ ืœืื”ื“ื•ืจื™ ืžืžื•ื ื ืœืžืจื™ื” ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ื›ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื™ื”ื™ื• ืœื™ ื‘ื™ื“ืš ื”ืœื›ืš ื ืฉื‘ืข ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืงืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื™ื”ื™ื• ืœื™ ื‘ื™ื“ืš ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื‘ืขื™ ื›ืคืจื” ืœื ืกื’ื™ ืขื“ ื“ืžื˜ื™ ืœื™ื“ื™ื” ื”ื ืœื ืื™ืฉืชื‘ืข ื”ื•ื™ ื’ื‘ื™ื” ืคืงื“ื•ืŸ ืขื“ ื“ืืชื™ ื•ืฉืงื™ืœ ืœื™ื”

Rather, Rava said: The case of the mishna is different, and the halakha stated here could be in accordance with the opinions of both Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva. For as the robber knows whom he robbed and admitted to him that he robbed him, since it is possible to return the money to its owner, the robbery victim is as the one who says to the robber: The money you owe me will be kept in your possession as a deposit for me. Therefore, in a case where the robber took a false oath, even though the owner is considered to have said to him: The money you owe me will be kept in your possession as a deposit for me, since the robber requires atonement for his false oath, it is not possible for him to achieve atonement until the money reaches the possession of the robbery victim. But in a case where the robber did not take a false oath, the money is considered as a deposit given to the robber until the owner comes and takes it.

ืœื ื™ืชืŸ ืœื ืœื‘ื ื• ื•ืœื ืœืฉืœื•ื—ื• ืื™ืชืžืจ ืฉืœื™ื— ืฉืขืฉืื• ื‘ืขื“ื™ื ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืืžืจ ื”ื•ื™ ืฉืœื™ื— ืจื‘ื” ืืžืจ ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ืฉืœื™ื—

ยง The mishna teaches that if the robber wishes to return the stolen item, he may not give the payment to the robbery victimโ€™s son to return it to the robbery victim, nor to his agent. The Gemara comments: It was stated with regard to an agent who was appointed in the presence of witnesses to collect a debt from another: Rav แธคisda said: Such an agent is a legally recognized agent, so that the debtor is considered to have repaid his debt as soon as he transfers the money to the agent, and the debtor will not be held responsible if an accident occurs causing the loss of the money before the agent gives it to the creditor. Rabba said: Such an agent is not a legally recognized agent, and the debtor remains responsible until the money reaches the creditorโ€™s possession.

ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืืžืจ ื”ื•ื™ ืฉืœื™ื— ืœื”ื›ื™ ื˜ืจื—ื™ ื•ืื•ืงืžื™ื” ื‘ืขื“ื™ื ื“ืœื™ืงื• ื‘ืจืฉื•ืชื™ื” ืจื‘ื” ืืžืจ ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ืฉืœื™ื— ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืื™ื ื™ืฉ ืžื”ื™ืžื ื ื”ื•ื ืื™ ืกืžื›ืช ืกืžื•ืš ืื™ ื‘ืขื™ืช ืœืฉื“ื•ืจื™ื” ื‘ื™ื“ื™ื” ืฉื“ืจ ื‘ื™ื“ื™ื”

The Gemara explains their respective opinions: Rav แธคisda said that he is an agent because it was for this reason that the creditor took the trouble and appointed the agent in the presence of witnesses, in order to place the matter under the agentโ€™s domain. Rabba said that he is not an agent because this is what the creditor is assumed to be saying to the debtor: This individual is a trustworthy person. If you are willing to rely on him, then rely on him to convey the payment to me. Similarly: If you wish to send the debt in his possession, then send it in his possession.

ืชื ืŸ ื”ืฉื•ืืœ ืืช ื”ืคืจื” ื•ืฉื™ืœื—ื” ื‘ื™ื“ ื‘ื ื• ื‘ื™ื“ ืขื‘ื“ื• ื‘ื™ื“ ืฉืœื•ื—ื• ืื• ื‘ื™ื“ ื‘ื ื• ื‘ื™ื“ ืขื‘ื“ื• ื‘ื™ื“ ืฉืœื•ื—ื• ืฉืœ ืฉื•ืืœ ื•ืžืชื” ืคื˜ื•ืจ

The Gemara cites a mishna that poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav แธคisda. We learned in a mishna (Bava Metzia 98b): With regard to one who enters into an agreement to borrow a cow from another, and the owner sent it to the borrower in the possession of his own son, or in the possession of his own slave, or in the possession of his own agent, or if he sent it in the possession of the borrowerโ€™s son, or in the possession of the borrowerโ€™s slave, or in the possession of the borrowerโ€™s agent, and the cow died, the borrower is exempt from paying for the cow, as it never entered his possession.

ื”ืื™ ืฉืœื•ื—ื• ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ ื“ืœื ืขืฉื” ื‘ืขื“ื™ื ืžื ื ื™ื“ืขื™ื ืŸ ืืœื ื“ืขืฉื” ื‘ืขื“ื™ื ื•ืงืชื ื™ ื“ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืงืฉื™ื ืœืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื

The Gemara explains the case of the mishna: With regard to this agent of the borrower, what are the circumstances surrounding his appointment? If the mishna is discussing a case where he did not appoint him as his agent in the presence of witnesses, how do we know that he was appointed as an agent? Rather, it must be that it is a case where he appointed him as his agent in the presence of witnesses, and yet the mishna teaches that the borrower is exempt. This poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav แธคisda, who holds that one acquires property through his agent. According to his reasoning, the borrower should be held responsible for the cow once it reaches the possession of the agent.

ื›ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ื‘ืฉื›ื™ืจื• ื•ืœืงื™ื˜ื• ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื‘ืฉื›ื™ืจื• ื•ืœืงื™ื˜ื•

The Gemara answers: It is as that which Rav แธคisda said concerning a different mishna: This is stated with regard to his hired hand or his regular harvester; here also the mishna in Bava Metzia is with regard to his hired hand or his regular harvester. The mishna discusses a case where there were no witnesses to the appointment of the agent, and therefore it does not pose a difficulty to the opinion of Rav แธคisda. Yet, since it is well known that this person is constantly in the ownerโ€™s service, he is assumed to be acting as his agent.

ืชื ืŸ ืœื ื™ืชืŸ ืœื ืœื‘ื ื• ื•ืœื ืœืฉืœื•ื—ื• ื”ืื™ ืฉืœื•ื—ื• ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ ื“ืœื ืขืฉืื• ื‘ืขื“ื™ื ืžื ื ื™ื“ืขื™ื ืŸ ืืœื ืœืื• ื“ืขืฉืื• ื‘ืขื“ื™ื ืชืจื’ืžื ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ื‘ืฉื›ื™ืจื• ื•ืœืงื™ื˜ื•

The Gemara poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav แธคisda from the mishna here. We learned in the mishna: If the robber wishes to return the stolen item, he may not give the payment to the robbery victimโ€™s son to return it to the robbery victim, nor to his agent. With regard to this agent of the robbery victim, what are the circumstances surrounding his appointment? If the mishna is discussing a case where the robbery victim did not appoint him as his agent in the presence of witnesses, how do we know that he was appointed as an agent? Rather, is it not discussing a case where the robbery victim appointed him as his agent in the presence of witnesses, and the robber nevertheless does not fulfill his obligation to return the stolen item by giving it to this agent? The Gemara answers: Rav แธคisda interpreted the ruling of the mishna with regard to his hired hand or his regular harvester, who do not require witnesses to validate their appointment as his agent.

ืื‘ืœ ืฉืœื™ื— ืฉืขืฉืื• ื‘ืขื“ื™ื ืžืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ื”ื•ื™ ืฉืœื™ื— ืื“ืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ืื‘ืœ ื ื•ืชืŸ ื”ื•ื ืœืฉืœื™ื— ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืœืคืœื•ื’ ื•ืœื™ืชื ื™ ื‘ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ืฉืœื™ื— ืฉืขืฉืื• ื‘ืขื“ื™ื ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ื”ื•ื™ ืฉืœื™ื—

The Gemara asks: But with regard to an agent who the robbery victim appointed in the presence of witnesses, what is the halakha? Would one say that indeed, one appointed before witnesses is a legally recognized agent? If that is the case, instead of teaching in the latter clause: But he may give the payment to an agent of the court, which indicates that this is the only agent to whom he may give it, let the mishna make a distinction within the case of an agent appointed by the robbery victim itself and teach: An agent who the robbery victim appointed in the presence of witnesses is indeed a legally recognized agent. If an agent appointed in the presence of witnesses is a legally recognized agent, why does the mishna shift to discuss an agent of the court?

ืืžืจื™ ืœื ืคืกื™ืงื ืœื™ื” ืฉืœื™ื— ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื ืฉื ื ืขืฉืื• ื ื’ื–ืœ ื•ืœื ืฉื ื ืขืฉืื• ื’ื–ืœืŸ ื”ื•ื™ ืฉืœื™ื— ืคืกื™ืงื ืœื™ื” ืฉืœื™ื— ืฉืขืฉืื• ื‘ืขื“ื™ื ื“ื›ื™ ืขืฉืื• ื ื’ื–ืœ ื”ื•ื ื“ื”ื•ื™ ืฉืœื™ื— ืขืฉืื• ื’ื–ืœืŸ ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ืฉืœื™ื— ืœื ืคืกื™ืงื ืœื™ื”

The Sages say in response: Although the tanna of the mishna could have stated the case of an agent appointed by the robbery victim in the presence of witnesses, he could not have stated this halakha definitively, as with regard to an agent of the court, there is no difference whether the robbery victim appointed him as an agent, i.e., the court appointed him at the behest of the robbery victim, and there is no difference whether the robber appointed him as an agent, i.e., the court appointed him at the behest of the robber. In both cases he is a legally recognized agent. Therefore, he could state the halakha concerning an agent of the court definitively. By contrast, with regard to an agent who was appointed in the presence of witnesses, that only when the robbery victim appointed him as an agent he is an agent, but when the robber appointed him as an agent, he is not an agent, as the robber cannot appoint an agent to receive payment on behalf of the robbery victim, he could not have stated this halakha definitively.

ื•ืœืืคื•ืงื™ ืžื”ืื™ ืชื ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืœื™ื— ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉืขืฉืื• ื ื’ื–ืœ ื•ืœื ืขืฉืื• ื’ื–ืœืŸ ืื• ืขืฉืื• ื’ื–ืœืŸ ื•ืฉืœื— ื”ืœื” ื•ื ื˜ืœ ืืช ืฉืœื• ืžื™ื“ื• ืคื˜ื•ืจ

The Gemara comments: And this mishna, which rules that an agent of the court is an agent even if appointed only by the robber, serves to exclude the opinion of this following tanna, as it is taught in the Tosefta (10:11) that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: If there was an agent of the court who was appointed by the robbery victim but not appointed by the robber, or an agent who was appointed by the robber, and subsequently the other, i.e., the robbery victim, sent for and took his payment from the agentโ€™s possession, the robber is exempt from paying for any accidental damage to the payment during the delivery. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar states that the robber is exempt from paying for any accidental damage when he gave the payment to a court agent he appointed only if the robbery victim sent for and took possession of the payment. This is in opposition to the ruling of the mishna that the robber is exempt whenever he gives the payment to an agent of the court.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื“ืืžืจื™ ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ืฉืœื™ื— ืฉืขืฉืื• ื‘ืขื“ื™ื ื”ื•ื™ ืฉืœื™ื— ื•ืื ืชืืžืจ ืžืฉื ืชื ื•

The Gemara cites the opinion of two other amoraโ€™im with regard to the status of an agent appointed in the presence of witnesses. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan and Rabbi Elazar both say: An agent who was appointed in the presence of witnesses is a legally recognized agent. And if you say: Our mishna contradicts this assertion, as it rules that the stolen item is not considered returned if given to an agent of the robbery victim, this is of no concern.

ื‘ืžืžืฆื™ื ืœื• ืฉืœื™ื— ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ืช ืœื™ ื–ื•ื–ื™ ื’ื‘ื™ ืคืœื ื™ื ื•ืœื ืงื ืžืฉื“ืจ ืœื”ื• ืื™ืชื—ื–ื™ ืœื™ื” ื“ืœืžื ืื™ื ื™ืฉ ื”ื•ื ื“ืœื ืžืฉื›ื— ืœืฉื“ื•ืจื™ ืœื™ื”

The Gemara explains: The mishna does not mean to disqualify an agent appointed by the robbery victim in the presence of witnesses, but rather is referring to a case where the robbery victim provides the robber with an agent without appointing him in the presence of witnesses, in that he says to someone: I have money owed to me that is currently with so-and-so, and he is not sending it. Present yourself to him, as perhaps he wishes to return it but cannot find a person with whom to send it.

ืื™ ื ืžื™ ื›ื“ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ื‘ืฉื›ื™ืจื• ื•ืœืงื™ื˜ื•

The Gemara offers a second explanation: Alternatively, it is in accordance with the statement of Rav แธคisda, that the mishna is not discussing a case where he appointed the agent in the presence of witnesses, but it is still known that the agent acts on behalf of the robbery victim, as the ruling of the mishna is stated with regard to the victimโ€™s hired hand or his regular harvester. That is why the robber is still liable after having given the payment to the agent.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ

ยง The Gemara discusses another matter relating to the appointment of an agent. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says:

ืื™ืŸ ืžืฉืœื—ื™ืŸ ืžืขื•ืช ื‘ื“ื™ื•ืงื ื™ ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืขื“ื™ื ื—ืชื•ืžื™ื ืขืœื™ื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืื ืขื“ื™ื ื—ืชื•ืžื™ื ืขืœื™ื” ืžืฉืœื—ื™ืŸ

One who owes a debt may not send money with another to the creditor on the basis of a figure [deyokani] or sign used in place of a signature that is associated with the creditor. The possession of this sign on the part of the other is not sufficient proof that he has been appointed as an agent. And this is the halakha even if witnesses verifying that this is the creditorโ€™s sign are signed on it. And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: If there are witnesses signed on it, one may send the money with the other.

ืืžืจื™ ืœืฉืžื•ืืœ ืžืื™ ืชืงื ืชื ื›ื™ ื”ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื ื”ื•ื™ ืžืกื™ืง ื–ื•ื–ื™ ื‘ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื‘ืจ ื—ืžื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ ืกืคืจื ื‘ื”ื“ื™ ื“ืืชื™ืช ืื™ื™ืชื™ื ื”ื• ื ื™ื”ืœื™ ื›ื™ ืื–ืœ ืœื”ืชื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ืžื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืœืš ื”ืชืงื‘ืœืชื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื–ื™ืœ ื‘ืจื™ืฉื ื•ื™ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืœืš ื”ืชืงื‘ืœืชื™

The Sages say: According to Shmuel, what is the rectification, i.e., what recourse is available to one who wishes to collect a debt without traveling to the debtorโ€™s location? The Gemara answers: One may act like that course of action of Rabbi Abba, who was owed money by Rav Yosef bar แธคama. Rabbi Abba said to Rav Safra: When you come back from Rabbi Yosef bar แธคamaโ€™s locale, bring my money to me. When Rav Safra went there, Rava, Rav Yosef bar แธคamaโ€™s son, said to him: Did Rabbi Abba write you a document stating: I have received payment, so that my father will have proof that he has absolved himself of the debt? Rav Safra said to him: No. Rava responded: If so, first go to him and let him write you a document stating: I have received payment, and then my father will pay you.

ืœืกื•ืฃ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืœืš ื ืžื™ ื”ืชืงื‘ืœืชื™ ืœืื• ื›ืœื•ื ื”ื•ื ื“ืœืžื ืื“ืืชื™ืช ืฉื›ื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื ื•ื ืคืœื• ื–ื•ื–ื™ ืงืžื™ ื™ืชืžื™ ื•ื”ืชืงื‘ืœืชื™ ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื ืœืื• ื›ืœื•ื ื”ื•ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื•ืืœื ืžืื™ ืชืงื ืชื ื–ื™ืœ ื ืงื ื™ื ื”ื• ืœืš ืื’ื‘ ืืจืขื ื•ืชื ืืช ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืœืŸ ื”ืชืงื‘ืœืชื™

Ultimately, Rava said to him: Even if he writes you a document stating: I have received payment, it is nothing, since perhaps by the time you arrive back here, Rabbi Abba will have died and the money will fall before his orphans as an inheritance, and the document stating: I have received payment, that was written by Rabbi Abba, will be nothing, as the debt is no longer owed to him, but rather, to his heirs. Rav Safra said to him: Rather, what is the rectification? Rava replied: Go, and Rabbi Abba will transfer to you the rights to the money owed to him by means of acquisition of land from him, and then you should come and write for us a document stating: I have received payment. Then, we will pay you.

ื›ื™ ื”ื ื“ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื”ื•ื” ืžืกื™ืง ืชืจื™ืกืจ ืืœืคื™ ื–ื•ื–ื™ ื‘ื™ ื—ื•ื–ืื™ ืืงื ื™ื ื”ื• ื ื™ื”ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ืื’ื‘ ืืกื™ืคื ื“ื‘ื™ืชื™ื” ื›ื™ ืืชื ื ืคืง ืœืืคื™ื” ืขื“ ืชื•ืืš

The Gemara notes: And this is like that course of action of Rav Pappa, who was owed twelve thousand dinars by a resident of Bei แธคozai, and he transferred his claim to the money to Rav Shmuel bar Abba by means of the acquisition of the threshold of his house. When Rav Shmuel bar Abba came from Bei แธคozai with the money in hand, Rav Pappa went out as far as Tavakh toward him in his excitement to receive the money.

ื ืชืŸ ืœื• ืืช ื”ืงืจืŸ ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืืœืžื ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืžืžื•ื ื ื”ื•ื ื•ืื ืžื™ื™ืช ืžืฉืœืžื™ ืœื™ื” ื™ื•ืจืฉื™ืŸ

ยง The mishna teaches that if the robber gave the robbery victim the principal value of the stolen item, but did not give him the additional one-fifth payment required of a robber, he is not required to pursue the robbery victim in order to return the additional one-fifth payment. The Gemara comments: Apparently, the additional one-fifth payment is considered monetary restitution rather than a fine. And accordingly, if the robber died, the heirs of the robber must pay it to the robbery victim.

ื•ืชื ืŸ ื ืžื™ ื ืชืŸ ืืช ื”ืงืจืŸ ื•ื ืฉื‘ืข ืขืœ ื”ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื”ืจื™ ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืขืœ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืืœืžื ื—ื•ืžืฉื ืžืžื•ื ื ื”ื•ื

And we also learned in the mishna that if the robber gave the robbery victim the principal and takes a false oath to him concerning the additional one-fifth payment, asserting that he had already paid it, the robber adds an additional one-fifth payment apart from the additional one-fifth payment about which he had taken a false oath. Apparently, the additional one-fifth payment is monetary restitution, as one is obligated to pay an additional one-fifth for taking a false oath only with regard to monetary restitution, not with regard to fines.

ื•ืชื ื™ื ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื”ื’ื•ื–ืœ ืืช ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื•ื ืฉื‘ืข ืœื• ื•ืžืช ื™ื•ืจืฉื™ืŸ ืžืฉืœืžื™ื ืงืจืŸ ื•ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื•ืคื˜ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืžืŸ ื”ืืฉื

And this is also taught in a baraita: With regard to one who robs another and takes a false oath to him that he did not rob him, and then dies, his heirs pay the principal and additional one-fifth payments to the robbery victim, but are exempt from the obligation to bring the guilt-offering.

ื•ื™ื•ืจืฉื™ืŸ ื‘ื ื™ ืฉืœื•ืžื™ ื—ื•ืžืฉื ื“ืื‘ื•ื”ื•ืŸ ื”ื•ื• ืืœืžื ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืžืžื•ื ื ื”ื•ื ื•ื‘ืขื™ ืฉืœื•ืžื™ ื™ื•ืจืฉื™ืŸ ื•ืจืžื™ื ื”ื• ืขื“ื™ื™ืŸ ืื ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืžืชื™ ืื™ื ื• ืžืฉืœื ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืขืœ ื’ื–ืœ ืื‘ื™ื• ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉืœื ื ืฉื‘ืข ืœื ื”ื•ื ื•ืœื ืื‘ื™ื•

The Gemara asks: But are heirs obligated to pay the additional one-fifth payment of their father, indicating that apparently the additional one-fifth payment is monetary restitution, and therefore the heirs must pay it? But one could raise a contradiction from a baraita. After having stated that one is required to add the additional one-fifth payment only for a robbery he commits himself, and not for a robbery committed by his father, the baraita states: I would still say that when does an heir not pay the additional one-fifth payment for his fatherโ€™s robbery? It is only when neither he nor his father took a false oath.

ื”ื•ื ื•ืœื ืื‘ื™ื• ืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืœื ื”ื•ื ื”ื•ื ื•ืื‘ื™ื• ืžื ื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืืฉืจ ื’ื–ืœ ื•ืืฉืจ ืขืฉืง ื•ื”ื•ื ืœื ื’ื–ืœ ื•ืœื ืขืฉืง

But if he took a false oath, but not his father; or if his father took a false oath, but not he; or if he and his father both took false oaths; from where is the heirโ€™s exemption derived? The verse states: โ€œHe shall restore the item that he robbed,โ€ and โ€œthe item that he has acquired through exploitationโ€ (Leviticus 5:23), and in this case the heir did not rob and did not exploit. Since the verse states the obligation to pay the additional one-fifth payment when discussing one who robbed or exploited another, and the heir has done neither, he is exempt from payment. This baraita states that heirs are not obligated to pay the additional one-fifth payment.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื›ืืŸ ืฉื”ื•ื“ื” ื›ืืŸ ืฉืœื ื”ื•ื“ื”

The Gemara answers: Rav Naแธฅman said that it is not difficult. Here, in the mishna and the first baraita, they discuss a case where the robber admitted his obligation and therefore was required to pay the additional one-fifth payment, and this obligation is transferred to his heir; there, in the latter baraita, it discusses a case where he did not admit his obligation and was never required to pay the additional one-fifth payment.

ืื™ ืœื ื”ื•ื“ื” ืงืจืŸ ื ืžื™ ืœื ืžืฉืœื ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ืœื ืžืฉืœื ื•ื”ื ืžื“ืงื ืžื”ื“ืจ ืื—ื•ืžืฉ ืœืžื™ืžืจื ื“ืงืจืŸ ืžืฉืœื

The Gemara rejects this answer: If the latter baraita discusses a case where he did not admit his obligation, then the halakha would be that the heir would not pay even the principal, as the obligation is not known by anyone. And if you would say that indeed it is so that he does not pay the principal, but isnโ€™t it understood from the fact that the tanna searches for a source to teach the heirโ€™s exemption from only the additional one-fifth payment, that it means to say that he does pay the principal.

ื•ืขื•ื“ ืชื ื™ื ื•ืขื“ื™ื™ืŸ ืื ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืžืชื™ ื”ื•ื ืžืฉืœื ืงืจืŸ ืขืœ ื’ื–ืœ ืื‘ื™ื• ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื ืฉื‘ืข ื”ื•ื ื•ืื‘ื™ื• ืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืœื ื”ื•ื ื”ื•ื ื•ืœื ืื‘ื™ื• ืœื ื”ื•ื ื•ืœื ืื‘ื™ื• ืžื ื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื’ื–ื™ืœื” ื•ืขื•ืฉืง ืื‘ื™ื“ื” ื•ืคืงื“ื•ืŸ ื™ืฉ ืชืœืžื•ื“

The Gemara also proves that the heir must pay the principal from the continuation of the same baraita. And further, it is taught in that baraita: And I would still say: When does the heir pay the principal for his fatherโ€™s robbery? It is only when he and his father both took false oaths. But if his father took a false oath, and not he; or if he took a false oath, but not his father; or if neither he nor his father took false oaths; from where is the heirโ€™s obligation to pay the principal derived? The verse states the following terms: โ€œRobbery,โ€ and โ€œexploitation,โ€ โ€œlost item,โ€ and โ€œdepositโ€ (Leviticus 5:23); and there is a derivation [yesh talmud] here to derive that the heir is obligated to pay the principal in all of these cases.

ื•ื™ืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื•ืงืืžืจ ืœื”ื ืฉืžืขืชื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจื™ื” ื™ืฉ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืงืืžืจ ืžืจ ืื• ื™ืฉืชืœืžื• ืงืืžืจ ืžืจ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื™ืฉ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืงืืžื™ื ื ื•ืžืจื™ื‘ื•ื™ื ื“ืงืจืื™ ืืžืจื™

The Gemara clarifies: And Rav Huna sat and stated this halakha, and Rabba, his son, said to him: Was the Master saying that there is a derivation [yesh talmud], or was the Master saying that they will be paid [yishtalmu]? Rav Huna said to him: I am saying: There is a derivation, and it is from the additional expressions in the verses that I say it can be derived. It is apparent that an heir is obligated to pay the principal, and this refutes Rav Naแธฅmanโ€™s attempted resolution.

ืืœื ืžืื™ ืœื ื”ื•ื“ื” ืœื ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื‘ื™ื• ื•ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ื ื•

Rather, what did Rav Naแธฅman mean when he suggested that the second baraita is referring to a case where he did not admit his obligation and exempts his heir from paying the additional one-fifth but obligates him to pay the principal? The baraita is referring to a case where the father did not admit, but his son did admit, and therefore he is obligated to pay the principal.

ื•ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ื ื• ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ืืžืจื™ ื‘ืฉืื™ืŸ ื’ื–ื™ืœื” ืงื™ื™ืžืช ืื™ ื‘ืฉืื™ืŸ ื’ื–ื™ืœื” ืงื™ื™ืžืช ืืคื™ืœื• ืงืจืŸ ื ืžื™ ืœื ืžืฉืœื ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ืื—ืจื™ื•ืช

The Gemara asks: And let his son be liable to pay the additional one-fifth payment for his own false oath. The Sages say: In the case of the baraita, it is where the stolen item is no longer extant. Although the false oath was taken, it is not the type of obligation for which one must pay an additional one-fifth payment. The Gemara asks: If in the case of the baraita it is where the stolen item is no longer extant, the halakha should be that the heir does not pay even the principal, as the halakha is that while heirs must return an item stolen by their father, they are not obligated to compensate the owner if the item is no longer extant. The Gemara answers: No, the ruling is necessary in a case where there is guaranteed property, i.e., land, which the heirs inherited from the robber. Heirs are obligated to compensate the owner of a stolen item with inherited land, even if the stolen item itself is no longer extant.

ื•ื›ื™ ืื™ื›ื ืื—ืจื™ื•ืช ื ื›ืกื™ื ืžืื™ ื”ื•ื™ ืžืœื•ื” ืขืœ ืคื” ื”ื™ื ื•ืžืœื•ื” ืขืœ ืคื” ืื™ื ื• ื’ื•ื‘ื” ืœื ืžืŸ ื”ื™ื•ืจืฉื™ืŸ ื•ืœื ืžืŸ ื”ืœืงื•ื—ื•ืช

The Gemara asks: And even when there is guaranteed property, i.e., land, what of it? After all, such a debt is legally considered a loan by oral agreement, and the creditor of a loan by oral agreement cannot collect from the heirs of the debtor, nor can he collect from those who purchased land from the debtor.

ืืžืจื™

The Sages say in response:

Scroll To Top