Study Bava Kamma folio 98B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
אי דאיכא סהדי דידעי מאי הוה בשטרא, ליכתבו ליה שטרא מעליא! ואי דליכא סהדי, אנן מנא ידעינן? אמר רבא: תהא במאמינו.
If there are witnesses who know what was written in the promissory note, they should write a new, proper, promissory note for him, and there will not be any loss. And if there are no witnesses, how do we know what was written in the promissory note in order to assess liability? Rava says: Let it refer to a case where the one who burned the promissory note trusts the creditor with regard to the details of the promissory note. Despite the concession of the one who burned the promissory note with regard to the amount of the debt, Rabba holds that he is exempt, since the value of the debt is not inherent in the actual paper.
אמר רב דימי בר חנינא: הא דרבה – מחלוקת רבי שמעון ורבנן היא. לרבי שמעון דאמר דבר הגורם לממון כממון דמי – מחייב; לרבנן דאמרי דבר הגורם לממון לאו כממון דמי – לא מחייב.
Rav Dimi bar Ḥanina said: This statement of Rabba is the subject of a dispute between R' Shimon and the Rabbis. According to the opinion of R' Shimon, who says that an item that causes financial loss is considered to have monetary value, the one who burned the promissory note is liable. According to the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that an item that causes financial loss is not considered to have monetary value, he is not liable. Rabba holds in accordance with the Rabbis, and therefore rules that one who burns a promissory note is exempt from liability.
מתקיף לה רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע: אימר דשמעת ליה לרבי שמעון דבר הגורם לממון כממון דמי – בדבר שעיקרו ממון, כדרבה; דאמר רבה: גזל חמץ לפני הפסח, ובא אחר ושרפו במועד – פטור, שהכל מצווים עליו לבערו. לאחר הפסח – מחלוקת רבי שמעון ורבנן;
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, objects to this: Say that you heard the opinion of R' Shimon, that an item that causes financial loss is considered to have monetary value, with regard to a case where he damaged an item that has intrinsic monetary value, in accordance with the statement of Rabba. As Rabba says: If one robbed another of leavened bread before Passover, and another came and burned it during the festival of Passover, when the leavened bread had already become forbidden, the one who burned it is exempt from paying the robber, as all are commanded to destroy the leavened bread, and he therefore performed a mitzva. If he burned it after Passover, that is the matter of dispute between R' Shimon and the Rabbis.