Study Bava Kamma folio 105A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
בשעמד בדין. אי בשעמד בדין, אפילו חומש נמי משלם! אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע: לפי שאין משלמין חומש על כפירת שעבוד קרקעות.
The reference here is to a case in which the father had already stood trial and was obligated to pay. In such a case, the debt is considered like a loan with a promissory note, which a creditor may collect from the debtor’s heirs. The Talmud rejects this: If it is a case in which the father had already stood trial and was obligated to pay, then the heir, who took a false oath and later confessed, would have to pay even the additional 1/5th payment as well, as this would be akin to any monetary obligation; but the baraita rules that he is obligated to pay only the principal. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: The heir is exempt because one does not pay the additional 1/5th payment for the denial of a debt that is secured by a lien on land.
רבא אמר: הכא במאי עסקינן – כגון שהיתה דיסקייא של אביו מופקדת ביד אחרים; קרן משלם – דהא איתיה, חומש לא משלם – דכי אישתבע בקושטא אישתבע, דהא לא הוה ידע.
Rava said a different explanation: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the stolen item is still extant, yet the heir is exempt because his father’s sack [disakaya] containing the stolen item was deposited in the possession of others. Accordingly, the heir pays the principal, since the stolen item is extant, but he does not pay the additional 1/5th payment because when he took an oath that it was not in his possession, he took an oath truthfully, as he did not know that his father had stolen the item.
חוץ מפחות שוה פרוטה בקרן כו׳. אמר רב פפא: לא שנו אלא שאין גזילה קיימת, אבל גזילה קיימת – צריך לילך אחריו; חיישינן שמא תייקר.
§ The Mishnah teaches that if the robbery victim forgave the robber concerning both payments, excepting less than the value of one peruta of the principal, he need not pursue him in order to return the remaining debt. Rav Pappa says: They taught that the robber is not obligated to pursue the robbery victim only when the stolen item is not extant, but if the stolen item is still extant, he must pursue him to return it, as we are concerned that perhaps the stolen item will appreciate in value, and the debt he owes will exceed the value of one peruta.