Halakhah for Bava Kamma 209:2

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:

[and liability had been established on the denial of which the son took a false oath])<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The text contained in parenthesis, i.e. 'But&nbsp;… oath' is stated by Rashi a.l. to have been an unwarranted insertion on the part of unauthorised scribes, since according to the Mishnah infra 121a, the children are liable to make restitution where real possessions were left to them by their father; v. however Tosaf. a.l. ');">³</span> why then should the son not pay even the Fifth?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the oath he himself took falsely. ');">⁴</span> — Said R. Huna the son of R. Joshua: Because a Fifth is not paid for the denial of a liability which is secured upon real estate.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As for the denial of such a liability no oath could be imposed; v. Shebu. VI, 5 and 37b. ');">⁵</span>

Explore halakhah for Bava Kamma 209:2. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.