Arakhin 7A

מכלל דתנא קמא סבר: ניתן לחזרת עמידת בית דין?!

The Talmud asks: If so, can one conclude by inference that the first tanna holds that one who is being taken to be executed can be brought back to stand before the court for judgment? This is clearly erroneous, as the court is not permitted to delay his execution.

אמר רב יוסף: במלוה על פה גובה מן היורשין קמיפלגי, תנא קמא סבר: מלוה על פה גובה מן היורשין, ורבי שמעון בן אלעזר סבר: אינו גובה מן היורשין.

Rav Yosef says: Everyone agrees that his execution may not be delayed. Rather, they disagree as to whether or not one who is owed money from a loan by oral agreement can collect from the heirs. The first tanna holds that one who is owed money from a loan by oral agreement can collect from the heirs, and therefore the injured party can collect from the heirs after the execution. But R' Shimon ben Elazar holds that one who is owed money from a loan by oral agreement cannot collect from the heirs, and therefore the heirs are exempt from payment for the injury.

רבה אמר: דכולי עלמא מלוה על פה אינו גובה מן היורשין, והכא במלוה הכתובה בתורה ככתובה בשטר קמיפלגי, תנא קמא סבר: ככתובה בשטר דמיא, ורבי שמעון בן אלעזר סבר: לאו ככתובה בשטר דמיא.

Rabba said: Actually, everyone agrees that one who is owed money from a loan by oral agreement cannot collect from the heirs; and here the tanna’im disagree with regard to whether a loan that is written in the Torah, e.g., one’s obligation to pay if he causes damage, is considered as though it is written in a document. The first tanna holds that a loan that is written in the Torah is considered as though it is written in a document, and may be collected from the heirs. And R' Shimon ben Elazar holds that it is not considered as though it is written in a document, and therefore it may not be collected.