Mesorat%20hashas for Bava Kamma 208:10

אמר רב נחמן לא קשיא כאן שהודה כאן שלא הודה

so that were the robber to die<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before having paid the Fifth. ');">¹⁶</span> the heirs would have to pay it. We have also learnt: IF HE REFUNDED TO HIM FOR THE PRINCIPAL AND TOOK AN OATH REGARDING THE FIFTH, HE WOULD HAVE TO PAY HIM A FIFTH ON TOP OF THE FIFTH, similarly proving that the Fifth is a civil liability. It was moreover taught to the same effect: If one man robbed another but took an oath [that he did not do so] and [after admitting his guilt he] died, the heirs would have to pay the principal and the Fifth, though they would be exempt from the trespass offering. Now, since heirs are subject to pay the Fifth which their father would have had to pay, [it surely proves that the Fifth is a civil liability which has to be met by heirs]. But a contradiction could be raised [from the following]: 'I would still say that the case where an heir has not to pay the Fifth for a robbery committed by his father is only where neither he nor his father took an oath.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Falsely. ');">¹⁷</span>

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Bava Kamma 208:10. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.