Mesorat%20hashas for Bava Kamma 208:17

אמרי

— It may, however, be said that the misappropriated article was no longer extant in this case.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And as according to the Mishnaic ruling infra 111b the son could in such a case not be made responsible for the misappropriated article, by committing perjury he rendered himself subject to Lev. V, 4, but not to the Fifth etc. ibid. 24-25. ');">²⁹</span> But if the misappropriated article was no longer extant, why should he pay even the principal?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the Mishnaic ruling, infra loc. cit. is to apply. ');">³⁰</span> — No; it might have application where real possessions were left.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the heirs are liable, v. loc. cit. ');">³¹</span> (But were even real possessions to be left, of what avail would it be since the liability is but an oral liability, and, as known,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.B. 42a, 157a and 175a. ');">³²</span> a liability by mere word of mouth can be enforced neither on heirs nor on purchasers?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a liability which is not supported by a legally valid document or judicial decision is only personal with the debtor. ');">³³</span> — It may however be said

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Bava Kamma 208:17. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.