## Bava Kamma Daf 103b

###### Bava Kamma 103b:1
[Bava Kamma 103b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/103b:1)

הֲרֵי זֶה מְשַׁלֵּם חוֹמֶשׁ עַל חוֹמֶשׁ, עַד שֶׁיִּתְמַעֵט הַקֶּרֶן מִשָּׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
then the additional one-fifth is considered a new principal obligation. The robber **pays** an additional **one-fifth** payment **apart from** the additional **one-fifth** payment about which he had taken a false oath. If he then takes a false oath concerning the second one-fifth payment, he is assessed an additional one-fifth payment for that oath, **until the principal,** i.e., the additional one-fifth payment about which he has most recently taken the false oath, **is reduced to less than the value of one *peruta*.**


###### Bava Kamma 103b:2
[Bava Kamma 103b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/103b:2)

וְכֵן בְּפִקָּדוֹן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אוֹ בְּפִקָּדוֹן אוֹ בִתְשׂוּמֶת יָד אוֹ בְגָזֵל, אוֹ עָשַׁק אֶת עֲמִיתוֹ אוֹ מָצָא אֲבֵדָה; וְכִחֶשׁ בָּהּ וְנִשְׁבַּע עַל שָׁקֶר״ – הֲרֵי זֶה מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וָחוֹמֶשׁ וְאָשָׁם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And such** is the *halakha* **with regard to a deposit, as it is stated:** “If anyone sins, and commits a trespass against the Lord, and he defrauds his counterpart **with regard to a deposit, or with regard to a pledge, or with regard to a robbery, or if he exploited his counterpart; or he has found that which was lost, and deals falsely with it, and swears to a lie**…he shall restore it in full, and shall add the fifth part more to it” (Leviticus 5:21–24). **This** one must **pay** the **principal and** an additional **one-fifth** payment, **and** bring **a guilt-offering.**


###### Bava Kamma 103b:3
[Bava Kamma 103b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/103b:3)

**גְּמָ׳** נִשְׁבַּע לוֹ – אִין, לֹא נִשְׁבַּע לוֹ – לָא; מַנִּי? לָא רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן וְלָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא! דְּתַנְיָא: גָּזַל אֶחָד מֵחֲמִשָּׁה וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אֵיזֶה מֵהֶן, וְכׇל אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״אוֹתִי גָּזַל״ – מַנִּיחַ גְּזֵילָה בֵּינֵיהֶם וּמִסְתַּלֵּק, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: לֹא זוֹ דֶּרֶךְ מוֹצִיאָתוֹ מִידֵי עֲבֵירָה, עַד שֶׁיְּשַׁלֵּם גְּזֵילָה לְכׇל אֶחָד [וְאֶחָד].

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna teaches that if a robber took a false oath that he did not rob, he must travel even as far as Media in order to repay the robbery victim. This indicates that if **he takes an oath to** the robbery victim, **yes,** he is required to go to any length to repay his obligation, but if he **did not take an oath to him, no,** he does not have to do so. **Whose** opinion is this? It is **not** the opinion of **Rabbi Tarfon and not** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva, as it is taught** in a mishna (*Yevamot* 118b): If one **robbed one of five** people **and he does not know which of them** he robbed, **and each one** of the five **says: He robbed me,** the robber **places** the **stolen item between them and withdraws** from them; this is **the statement of Rabbi Tarfon. Rabbi Akiva says: This is not** the **way to spare him from transgression.** He is not considered to have returned the stolen item **until he pays** the value of the **stolen item to each and every one** of the five.


###### Bava Kamma 103b:4
[Bava Kamma 103b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/103b:4)

מַנִּי? אִי רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן – אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִישְׁתְּבַע, אָמַר: מַנִּיחַ גְּזֵילָה בֵּינֵיהֶם וּמִסְתַּלֵּק! אִי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא – אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא אִישְׁתְּבַע, אָמַר: עַד שֶׁיְּשַׁלֵּם גְּזֵילָה לְכׇל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: In accordance with **whose** opinion is the mishna written? **If** one suggests that it is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Tarfon,** it is not so, because **even though** the robber **took** a false **oath** that he did not rob, Rabbi Tarfon **says: He places** the **stolen item between them and withdraws;** it is not his responsibility to ensure that it reaches the robbery victim. **If** one suggests that it is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva,** it is also not so, because **even though** the robber **did not** necessarily **take** a false **oath,** Rabbi Akiva **says:** He is not considered to have returned the stolen item **until he pays** the value of the **stolen item to each and every one** of the five, while the mishna rules that his obligation is contingent upon his having taken the false oath.


###### Bava Kamma 103b:5
[Bava Kamma 103b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/103b:5)

לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא, וְכִי קָאָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא עַד שֶׁיְּשַׁלֵּם גְּזֵילָה לְכׇל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד – הֵיכָא דְּאִישְׁתְּבַע הוּא דְּקָאָמַר. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״לַאֲשֶׁר הוּא לוֹ, יִתְּנֶנּוּ בְּיוֹם אַשְׁמָתוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Actually, it is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva, and when Rabbi Akiva says** that the robber is not considered to have returned the stolen item **until he pays** the value of the **stolen item to each and every one** of the five, it is only in a case **where** the robber **took** a false **oath that** Rabbi Akiva **says** this. **What is the reason? As the verse states** with regard to one who takes a false oath concerning a financial obligation: **“Unto him to whom it appertains shall he give it, on the day of his being guilty”** (Leviticus 5:24). The *halakha* that the guilty party must make a rigorous effort to return what he owes is stated in the case of one who took a false oath, and Rabbi Akiva would state his ruling only in that case.


###### Bava Kamma 103b:6
[Bava Kamma 103b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/103b:6)

וְרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן – אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִישְׁתְּבַע, עֲבוּד רַבָּנַן תַּקַּנְתָּא. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי צָדוֹק אוֹמֵר: תַּקָּנָה גְּדוֹלָה הִתְקִינוּ, שֶׁאִם הָיְתָה הוֹצָאָה יְתֵירָה עַל הַקֶּרֶן – מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וָחוֹמֶשׁ לְבֵית דִּין, וּמֵבִיא אֲשָׁמוֹ וּמִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** how does **Rabbi Tarfon** rule that a robber who took a false oath is not required to pay all claimants, being that the verse indicates otherwise? The Gemara answers: **Even though he took** a false **oath** and by Torah law is obligated to return the stolen item to the robbery victim, **the Sages instituted an ordinance** allowing him to place it between the five possible victims, **as it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says:** The Sages **instituted a great ordinance** stating **that if the expense** required to return a stolen item to the victim **is greater than the principal,** the robber may **pay the principal and** the additional **one-fifth** payment **to the court, and** he then **brings his guilt-offering and achieves atonement for himself.** This ordinance would apply here as well, as the expense required to pay all five claimants is greater than the principal.


###### Bava Kamma 103b:7
[Bava Kamma 103b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/103b:7)

וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא – כִּי עֲבוּד רַבָּנַן תַּקַּנְתָּא, הֵיכָא דְּיָדַע לְמַאן גַּזְלֵיהּ, דְּקָא מַהְדַּר לֵיהּ מָמוֹנָא לְמָרֵיהּ; גָּזַל אֶחָד מֵחֲמִשָּׁה, דְּלָא יָדַע לְמַאן גַּזְלֵיהּ, דְּלָא הָדַר מָמוֹנָא לְמָרֵיהּ – לָא עֲבוּד רַבָּנַן תַּקַּנְתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** doesn’t **Rabbi Akiva** agree that the Sages instituted this ordinance? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Akiva holds that **when the Sages instituted the ordinance,** they did so only for cases **where** the robber **knows whom he robbed, as** in such cases **he is** definitely **returning the money to its owner** by depositing it with the court, who will convey it to the robbery victim. But in the case of one who **robbed one of five** people, **where he does not know whom he robbed,** and **where,** by merely placing the stolen item between the five of them **the money is not returned to its owner, the Sages did not institute an ordinance.**


###### Bava Kamma 103b:8
[Bava Kamma 103b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/103b:8)

מֵתִיב רַב הוּנָא בַּר יְהוּדָה, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר: לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא עַל שֶׁלָּקַח אֶחָד מֵחֲמִשָּׁה וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ מֵאֵיזֶה מֵהֶן לָקַח – שֶׁמַּנִּיחַ דְּמֵי מִקָּח בֵּינֵיהֶם וּמִסְתַּלֵּק. עַל מָה נֶחְלְקוּ? שֶׁגָּזַל אֶחָד מֵחֲמִשָּׁה בְּנֵי אָדָם, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ מֵאֵיזֶה מֵהֶן גָּזַל; שֶׁרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר: מַנִּיחַ דְּמֵי גְּזֵילָה בֵּינֵיהֶם וּמִסְתַּלֵּק, וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֵין לוֹ תַּקָּנָה, עַד שֶׁיְּשַׁלֵּם גְּזֵילָה לְכׇל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna bar Yehuda raises an objection** to the explanation that Rabbi Akiva stated his opinion specifically in a case where the robber took an oath. The *baraita* in the *Tosefta* (*Yevamot* 14:2) states that **Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva did not disagree with regard to one who purchased** an item **from** one of **five** people **and does not know from which of them he purchased** it, as both agree **that** in this case **he places the money of the purchase between them and withdraws.** Since the purchaser has not transgressed, he is not penalized by being required to suffer the loss of paying each of them. **With regard to what did they disagree?** They disagree with regard to one **who robbed one of five people, and he does not know from which of them he robbed** the item, **as Rabbi Tarfon says: He places the stolen item between them and withdraws, and Rabbi Akiva says: He has no remedy,** i.e., he has not fulfilled his obligation to return the stolen item, **until he pays** the value of **the stolen item to each and every one** of them.


###### Bava Kamma 103b:9
[Bava Kamma 103b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/103b:9)

וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ דְּאִישְׁתְּבַע, מָה לִי לָקַח מָה לִי גָּזַל?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Huna bar Yehuda states his objection: **And if it enters your mind that** Rabbi Akiva stated his ruling specifically **with regard to** one who **took** a false **oath, what** is the difference **to me** if he **purchased** an item from another, and **what** is the difference **to me** if he **robbed** him? In either case he has transgressed the prohibition against taking a false oath denying his obligation, and he should be penalized by being required to ensure that the one to whom he owes the money receives it.


###### Bava Kamma 103b:10
[Bava Kamma 103b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/103b:10)

וְעוֹד מֵתִיב רָבָא: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּחָסִיד אֶחָד שֶׁלָּקַח מִשְּׁנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם וְלֹא הָיָה יוֹדֵעַ מֵאֵיזֶה מֵהֶן לָקַח, וּבָא לִפְנֵי רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, אָמַר לוֹ: הַנַּח דְּמֵי מִקָּחֲךָ בֵּינֵיהֶם, וְהִסְתַּלֵּק. בָּא לִפְנֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, אָמַר לוֹ: אֵין לְךָ תַּקָּנָה, עַד שֶׁתְּשַׁלֵּם לְכׇל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ דְּמִישְׁתְּבַע, חָסִיד מִי מִישְׁתְּבַע בְּשִׁיקְרָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rava raises another objection** to the explanation that Rabbi Akiva stated his opinion specifically in a case where the robber took an oath. There was **an incident involving a certain pious** man **who purchased** an item **from** one of **two people, and he did not know from which of them he purchased** the item, **and he came before Rabbi Tarfon** for a ruling. Rabbi Tarfon **said to him: Place the money of your purchase between them and withdraw. He** then **came before Rabbi Akiva,** who **said to him: You have no remedy until you pay each and every one,** i.e., both of them. **And if it enters your mind** that Rabbi Akiva stated his ruling specifically **where** the purchaser **took** a false **oath, does a pious** man **take a false oath?** It seems from this incident that Rabbi Akiva rules he must pay all potential owners regardless of whether or not he took a false oath.


###### Bava Kamma 103b:11
[Bava Kamma 103b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/103b:11)

וְכִי תֵּימָא דְּמִישְׁתְּבַע וַהֲדַר הָוֵי חָסִיד, וְהָא כׇּל הֵיכָא דְּאָמְרִינַן ״מַעֲשֶׂה בְּחָסִיד אֶחָד״ – אוֹ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בָּבָא, אוֹ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּרַבִּי אִילְעַאי; וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בָּבָא וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּרַבִּי אִילְעַאי חֲסִידִים דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא הֲווֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say that** perhaps **he took** a false **oath and later became a pious** man, **but** isn’t there a tradition that **anywhere that we say:** There was **an incident involving a certain pious** man, the pious man is **either Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava or Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Elai, and Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava and Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Elai, were** both **pious** men **from the beginning.**


###### Bava Kamma 103b:12
[Bava Kamma 103b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/103b:12)

אֶלָּא לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן הִיא, וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן הֵיכָא דְּאִישְׁתְּבַע. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״לַאֲשֶׁר הוּא לוֹ, יִתְּנֶנּוּ בְּיוֹם אַשְׁמָתוֹ״. וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דְּאָמַר אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא מִישְׁתְּבַע – קָנֵיס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Due to these objections, the Gemara offers an alternative explanation. **Rather,** the mishna here **is actually** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Tarfon, and Rabbi Tarfon concedes** that a robber must pay every potential owner in a case **where he took** a false **oath,** as is the case in the mishna here. **What is the reason? As the verse states: “Unto him to whom it appertains shall he give it, in the day of his being guilty”** (Leviticus 5:24). This verse, which requires one to go to any length to return money owed, is referring specifically to one who takes a false oath concerning his financial obligation. **And Rabbi Akiva, who said** in the mishna in tractate *Yevamot* that a robber must pay all potential owners **even though he did not take** a false **oath,** agrees that the verse is referring specifically to one who takes a false oath, but holds that the Sages **penalize** the robber by obligating him to pay them all in any event.


###### Bava Kamma 103b:13
[Bava Kamma 103b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/103b:13)

וְרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, מִכְּדֵי הֵיכָא דְּמִישְׁתְּבַע – לָא סַגִּיא דְּלָא הוֹדָה; מַאי אִירְיָא ״וְנִשְׁבַּע״? אֲפִילּוּ בְּלָא שְׁבוּעָה נָמֵי! דְּתַנְיָא, מוֹדֶה רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן בְּאוֹמֵר לִשְׁנַיִם: ״גָּזַלְתִּי אֶחָד מִכֶּם מָנֶה וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אֵיזֶה מִכֶּם״ – נוֹתֵן לָזֶה מָנֶה וְלָזֶה מָנֶה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this explanation of the mishna: **But** if the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Tarfon, after all,** the mere fact that it is a case **where he took** a false **oath is not sufficient** to obligate him to pay the additional one-fifth and to bring a guilt-offering if it is a case **where he did not** also **admit** that he took a false oath and owes the money. Therefore, **why** would the mishna here **specifically** state: **And he took** a false **oath? Even without** taking the false **oath,** the robber should **also** be obligated to pursue the owner as a result of his having admitted his obligation. **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Tarfon concedes** that **in** a case where a robber **says to two** people: **I robbed one of you** of **one hundred dinars and I do not know which of you** it was, **he gives one hundred dinars to this** person **and one hundred dinars to that** person,