Bava Kamma 209:1

בשעמד בדין אי בשעמד בדין אפילו חומש נמי משלם אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע לפי שאין משלמין חומש על כפירת שעבוד קרקעות

that [before the father died] he had already appeared in court<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where he was summoned on the instigation of witnesses after he had already denied the claim with a false oath; in which case there is no liability of a Fifth, v. Mishnah 108b. Tosaf. a.l. ');">¹</span> [and liability was established against him].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the strength of impartial evidence. ');">²</span> But if he had already appeared in court<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where he was summoned on the instigation of witnesses after he had already denied the claim with a false oath; in which case there is no liability of a Fifth, v. Mishnah 108b. Tosaf. a.l. ');">¹</span>

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>

חוץ מפחות שוה פרוטה בקרן כו': אמר רב פפא לא שנו אלא שאין גזילה קיימת אבל גזילה קיימת צריך לילך אחריו חיישינן שמא תייקר

But Raba said [that the misappropriated article was still extant in this case as the reason that the son need not pay a Fifth for his own false oath is because] we were dealing here with a case where [the misappropriated article was kept in] his father's bag<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. [G], bisaccium. ');">⁶</span> that was deposited with others.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that while the son took the oath that the article was not with him, he meant to swear truly and could therefore not be made liable for perjury; cf. Shebu. 36b. ');">⁷</span> The principal therefore must be paid since it was subsequently discovered to be in existence, whereas the Fifth has not to be paid since when the son took the oath he meant to swear truly, as at that time he did not know [that there was a misappropriated article in the estate].

איכא דאמרי אמר רב פפא לא שנא גזילה קיימת ולא שנא שאין גזילה קיימת אינו צריך לילך אחריו לשמא תייקר לא חיישינן

WITH THE EXCEPTION, HOWEVER, OF LESS THAN THE VALUE OF A <i>PERUTAH</i> [DUE] ON ACCOUNT OF THE PRINCIPAL HE WOULD NOT HAVE TO GO AFTER HIM. R. Papa said: This Mishnaic ruling can apply only where the misappropriated article was no more in existence, for where the misappropriated article was still in existence the robber would still have to go after him, as there is a possibility that it may have risen in value.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Kid. 12a. ');">⁸</span> Others, however, said that R. Papa stated that there was no difference whether the misappropriated article was in existence or not in existence, as in all cases he would not have to go after him, since we disregard the possibility that it may rise in price.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Kid. 12a. ');">⁸</span> Raba said: If one misappropriated three bundles [of goods altogether] worth three perutahs, but which subsequently fell in price and become worth only two, and it so happened that he restored two bundles, he would still have to restore the third: this could also be proved from the [following] teaching of the Tanna:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since at the time of the robbery its value was not less than a perutah. ');">⁹</span>

אמר רבא גזל שלש אגודות בשלש פרוטות והוזלו ועמדו על שתים אם החזיר לו שתים חייב להחזיר לו אחרת ותנא תונא גזל חמץ ועבר עליו הפסח אומר לו הרי שלך לפניך

If one misappropriated leaven and Passover meanwhile came and went,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And thus rendered the leaven unfit for any use. ');">¹⁰</span> he may say to the plaintiff, Here there is thine before thee.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since no tangible change took place in the misappropriated article, v. supra 96b. ');">¹¹</span> The reason evidently is that the misappropriated article is intact, whereas if it were not intact, even though it has at present no pecuniary value, he would have to pay on account of the fact that it originally<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., at the time of the robbery. ');">¹²</span>

טעמא דאיתיה בעיניה הא ליתיה בעיניה אע"ג דהשתא לאו ממונא כיון דמעיקרא ממונא הוא בעי שלומי הכא נמי אף על גב דהשתא לא שוה פרוטה [כיון דמעיקרא הוי שוה פרוטה] בעי שלומי

had some pecuniary value. So also in this case,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Regarding the bundles. ');">¹³</span> though the bundle is now not of the value of a <i>perutah</i>, since originally it was of the value of a <i>perutah</i> he must pay for it. Raba raised the question: What would be the law where he misappropriated two bundles amounting in value to a <i>perutah</i> and returned the plaintiff one? Do we lay stress on the fact that there is not now with him a misappropriated object of the value of a <i>perutah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And should accordingly not have to pay for it. ');">¹⁴</span>

בעי רבא גזל שתי אגודות בפרוטה והחזיר לו אחת מהן מהו מי אמרינן השתא ליכא גזילה או דלמא הא לא הדר גזילה דהואי גביה

or do we say that since he did not restore the robbery<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the whole of it. ');">¹⁵</span> which was with him he did not discharge his duty?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with Lev. V, 23. ');">¹⁶</span> Raba himself on second thoughts solved it thus: There is neither a robbery here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the hands of the defendant. ');">¹⁷</span>

הדר פשטה גזילה אין כאן השבה אין כאן אי גזילה אין כאן השבה יש כאן הכי קאמר אף על פי שגזילה אין כאן מצות השבה אין כאן

nor is there the performance of restoration here.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the whole restoration was of an article worth less than a perutah. ');">¹⁸</span> But if there is no robbery here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the hands of the defendant. ');">¹⁷</span> is it not surely because there was restoration here? — What he meant was this: Though there remained no robbery here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 609, n. 10. ');">¹⁹</span>

ואמר רבא הרי אמרו נזיר שגילח ושייר שתי שערות לא עשה ולא כלום בעי רבא גילח אחת ונשרה אחת מהו אמר ליה רב אחא מדיפתי לרבינא נזיר שגילח אחת אחת קא מבעיא ליה לרבא

the performance of the injunction of restoration<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 609, n. 9. ');">²⁰</span> was similarly not performed here.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 609. n. 11. ');">²¹</span> Raba said: It has been definitely stated<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Naz. 42a. ');">²²</span>

אמר ליה לא צריכא כגון שנשר אחת מהן וגילח אחת מי אמרינן השתא מיהת הא ליכא שיעור או דלמא הא לאו גילוח הוא דמעיקרא הא שייר שתי שערות והשתא כי גילח לא הוי ב' שערות

that a Nazirite who performed the duty of shaving<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with Num. VI, 9 and 18. ');">²³</span> but left two hairs unshaved performed nothing at all [of the injunction]. Raba asked: What would be the law where he [subsequently] shaved one of the two and the other fell out of its own accord? — Said R. Aha of Difti<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 73a. ');">²⁴</span> to Rabina: How could it have been doubtful to Raba whether a Nazirite would have performed his duty by shaving one hair after another?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is this not generally so in all cases of shaving? The injunction has surely been performed, since at the beginning of shaving the minimum number of hairs was not lacking. ');">²⁵</span>

הדר פשטה שער אין כאן גילוח אין כאן אי שער אין כאן גילוח יש כאן הכי קאמר אע"פ ששער אין כאן מצות גילוח אין כאן

— He replied:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Rabina to R. Aha. ');">²⁶</span> No; the query has application where, e.g., one of the two hairs fell out of itself<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before he started to shave the two hairs. ');">²⁷</span> and the other was shaved by him: Shall we say that [since] now there is no minimum of hair left unshaved [the duty of shaving has been performed], or was there perhaps no performance of shaving since originally he had left two hairs [unshaved] and when he [made up his mind to] shave them now, there were not two hairs to be shaved? On second thoughts Raba himself solved it thus: There is neither any hair here, nor is there the performance of shaving here. But if there is no hair [left] here, was not the duty of shaving surely performed here? — What he meant was this: Though there remained no hair, yet the performance of the injunction of shaving was not performed here.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [I.e., he has not fulfilled the relevant precept (Tosaf.).] ');">²⁸</span>

ואמר רבא הרי אמרו חבית שניקבה וסתמוה שמרים הצילוה בעי רבא אגף חציה מהו

Raba also said: It has been stated that if an earthenware barrel<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That was covered on all sides. ');">²⁹</span> had a hole which was filled up with lees, they would render it safe [and secure<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From becoming defiled. ');">³⁰</span> while in a tent where a corpse of a human being was kept, as the barrel would be considered to have a covering tightly fastened upon it].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And thus not be subject to Num. XIX, 15. ');">³¹</span>

א"ל רב יימר לרב אשי לאו משנתנו היא זו דתנן חבית שניקבה וסתמוה שמרים הצילוה פקקה בזמורה עד שימרח היו בה שתים עד שימרח מן הצדדים ובין זמורה לחבירתה

Raba thereupon asked: What would be the law where only half of the hole was blocked up?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Reducing it to less than the prescribed minimum to act as outlet (v. Kel. IX, 8).] ');">³²</span> Said R. Yemar to R. Ashi: Is this not covered by our Mishnah? For we have learnt: 'If an earthenware barrel<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 610, n. 11. ');">³³</span> had a hole which was filled up with lees, they would render it safe [and secure<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V.p. 610, n. 12. ');">³⁴</span>

טעמא דמרח הא לא מרח לא אמאי ותיהוי כי אגף חציה

while in a tent where a corpse of a human being was kept]. If it was corked up with vine shoots<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not with lees. ');">³⁵</span> it would not do unless it was smeared with mortar.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the purpose of blocking up the hole well. ');">³⁶</span> If there were two vine shoots corking it up they would have to be smeared on all sides as well as between one shoot and another.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kel. X, 6. ');">³⁷</span>

אמרי הכי השתא התם אי לא מרח לא קאי אגף חציה במידי דקאי קאי

Now the reason why this is so is because it was smeared, so that if it would not have been smeared this would not have been so. But why should this not be like a case where half of the hole was blocked up?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the query of Raba should be answered in the negative. ');">³⁸</span> — It might, however, be said that there is no comparison at all: for in that case if he did not smear it the blocking would not hold at all,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the smearing is essential. ');">³⁹</span> whereas here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in the query of Raba. ');">⁴⁰</span>

ואמר רבא הרי אמרו גזל חמץ ועבר עליו הפסח אומר לו הרי שלך לפניך בעי רבא

half of the hole was blocked up with such a material as would hold. Raba further said: It was stated: If one misappropriated leaven and Passover came and went, he may say to him. Here there is thine before thee.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 96b. ');">⁴¹</span> Raba thereupon asked: