## Bava Kamma Daf 104b

###### Bava Kamma 104b:1
[Bava Kamma 104b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/104b:1)

אֵין מְשַׁלְּחִין מָעוֹת בִּדְיוֹקְנֵי, וַאֲפִילּוּ עֵדִים חֲתוּמִים עָלֶיהָ. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אִם עֵדִים חֲתוּמִים עָלֶיהָ – מְשַׁלְּחִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One who owes a debt **may not send money** with another to the creditor **on the basis of a figure [*deyokani*]** or sign used in place of a signature that is associated with the creditor. The possession of this sign on the part of the other is not sufficient proof that he has been appointed as an agent. **And** this is the *halakha* **even if witnesses** verifying that this is the creditor’s sign **are signed on it. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If** there are **witnesses signed on it, one may send** the money with the other.


###### Bava Kamma 104b:2
[Bava Kamma 104b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/104b:2)

אָמְרִי: לִשְׁמוּאֵל מַאי תַּקַּנְתָּא? כִּי הָא דְּרַבִּי אַבָּא הָוֵי מַסֵּיק זוּזֵי בִּדְרַב יוֹסֵף בַּר חָמָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְרַב סָפְרָא: בַּהֲדֵי דְּאָתֵית, אַיְיתִינְהוּ נִיהֲלִי. כִּי אֲזַל לְהָתָם, אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא בְּרֵיהּ: מִי כָּתַב לָךְ: ״הִתְקַבַּלְתִּי״? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא. אִי הָכִי, זִיל בְּרֵישָׁא, וְיִכְתּוֹב לָךְ ״הִתְקַבַּלְתִּי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **say: According to Shmuel, what is the rectification,** i.e., what recourse is available to one who wishes to collect a debt without traveling to the debtor’s location? The Gemara answers: One may act **like that** course of action **of Rabbi Abba,** who **was owed money by Rav Yosef bar Ḥama.** Rabbi Abba **said to Rav Safra: When you come** back from Rabbi Yosef bar Ḥama’s locale, **bring** my money **to me. When** Rav Safra **went there, Rava,** Rav Yosef bar Ḥama’s **son, said to him: Did** Rabbi Abba **write you** a document stating: **I have received** payment, so that my father will have proof that he has absolved himself of the debt? Rav Safra **said to him: No.** Rava responded: **If so, first go** to him **and let him write you** a document stating: **I have received** payment, and then my father will pay you.


###### Bava Kamma 104b:3
[Bava Kamma 104b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/104b:3)

לְסוֹף אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי כָּתַב לָךְ נָמֵי ״הִתְקַבַּלְתִּי״, לָאו כְּלוּם הוּא; דִּלְמָא אַדְּאָתֵית שָׁכֵיב רַבִּי אַבָּא, וְנָפְלוּ זוּזֵי קַמֵּי יַתְמֵי, וְ״הִתְקַבַּלְתִּי״ דְּרַבִּי אַבָּא לָאו כְּלוּם הוּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְאֶלָּא מַאי תַּקַּנְתָּא? זִיל נַקְנִינְהוּ לָךְ אַגַּב אַרְעָא, וְתָא אַתְּ כְּתוֹב לַן ״הִתְקַבַּלְתִּי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ultimately,** Rava **said to him: Even if he writes you** a document stating: **I have received** payment, **it is nothing,** since **perhaps by** the time **you arrive** back here, **Rabbi Abba will have died and the money will fall before** his **orphans** as an inheritance, **and** the document stating: **I have received** payment, that was written **by Rabbi Abba, will be nothing,** as the debt is no longer owed to him, but rather, to his heirs. Rav Safra **said to him: Rather, what is the rectification?** Rava replied: **Go,** and Rabbi Abba will **transfer to you** the rights to the money owed to him **by means of** acquisition of **land** from him, **and** then **you** should **come** and **write for us** a document stating: **I have received** payment. Then, we will pay you.


###### Bava Kamma 104b:4
[Bava Kamma 104b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/104b:4)

כִּי הָא דְּרַב פָּפָּא הֲוָה מַסֵּיק תְּרֵיסַר אַלְפֵי זוּזֵי בֵּי חוֹזָאֵי, אַקְנִינְהוּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ לְרַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אַבָּא אַגַּב אַסִּיפָּא דְבֵיתֵיהּ. כִּי אֲתָא, נְפַק לְאַפֵּיהּ עַד תְּוָאךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: And this is **like that** course of action **of Rav Pappa,** who **was owed twelve thousand dinars** by a resident of **Bei Ḥozai,** and **he transferred** his claim to the money **to Rav Shmuel bar Abba by means of** the acquisition of **the threshold of his house. When** Rav Shmuel bar Abba **came** from Bei Ḥozai with the money in hand, Rav Pappa **went out as far as Tavakh toward him** in his excitement to receive the money.


###### Bava Kamma 104b:5
[Bava Kamma 104b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/104b:5)

נָתַן לוֹ אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְכוּ׳. אַלְמָא חוֹמֶשׁ מָמוֹנָא הוּא, וְאִם מָיֵית – מְשַׁלְּמִי לֵיהּ יוֹרְשִׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that if the robber **gave** the robbery victim **the principal** value of the stolen item, but did not give him the additional one-fifth payment required of a robber, he is not required to pursue the robbery victim in order to return the additional one-fifth payment. The Gemara comments: **Apparently,** the additional **one-fifth** payment **is** considered **monetary restitution** rather than a fine. **And** accordingly, **if** the robber **died,** the **heirs** of the robber must **pay it** to the robbery victim.


###### Bava Kamma 104b:6
[Bava Kamma 104b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/104b:6)

וּתְנַן נָמֵי: נָתַן אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְנִשְׁבַּע עַל הַחוֹמֶשׁ – הֲרֵי מוֹסִיף חוֹמֶשׁ עַל חוֹמֶשׁ. אַלְמָא חוּמְשָׁא מָמוֹנָא הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And we also learned** in the mishna that if the robber **gave** the robbery victim **the principal and takes** a false **oath** to him **concerning the** additional **one-fifth** payment, asserting that he had already paid it, the robber **adds** an additional **one-fifth** payment **apart from** the additional **one-fifth** payment about which he had taken a false oath. **Apparently,** the additional **one-fifth** payment **is monetary restitution,** as one is obligated to pay an additional one-fifth for taking a false oath only with regard to monetary restitution, not with regard to fines.


###### Bava Kamma 104b:7
[Bava Kamma 104b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/104b:7)

וְתַנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: הַגּוֹזֵל אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ, וְנִשְׁבַּע לוֹ, וָמֵת – יוֹרְשִׁין מְשַׁלְּמִים קֶרֶן וָחוֹמֶשׁ, וּפְטוּרִין מִן הָאָשָׁם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And this is also taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **one who robs another and takes** a false **oath to him** that he did not rob him, **and** then **dies,** his **heirs pay the principal and** additional **one-fifth** payments to the robbery victim, **but are exempt from** the obligation to bring **the guilt-offering.**


###### Bava Kamma 104b:8
[Bava Kamma 104b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/104b:8)

וְיוֹרְשִׁין בְּנֵי שַׁלּוֹמֵי חוּמְשָׁא דַּאֲבוּהוֹן הָווּ – אַלְמָא חוֹמֶשׁ מָמוֹנָא הוּא, וּבָעֵי שַׁלּוֹמֵי יוֹרְשִׁין. וּרְמִינְהוּ, עֲדַיִין אֲנִי אוֹמֵר: אֵימָתַי אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם חוֹמֶשׁ עַל גֶּזֶל אָבִיו – בִּזְמַן שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁבַּע לֹא הוּא וְלֹא אָבִיו;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** are **heirs obligated** to **pay the** additional **one-fifth** payment **of their father,** indicating that **apparently** the additional **one-fifth** payment **is monetary restitution, and** therefore the **heirs must pay** it? **But** one could **raise a contradiction** from a *baraita*. After having stated that one is required to add the additional one-fifth payment only for a robbery he commits himself, and not for a robbery committed by his father, the *baraita* states: **I** would **still say** that **when does** an heir **not pay** the additional **one-fifth** payment **for his father’s robbery?** It is only **when neither he nor his father took** a false **oath.**


###### Bava Kamma 104b:9
[Bava Kamma 104b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/104b:9)

הוּא וְלֹא אָבִיו, אָבִיו וְלֹא הוּא, הוּא וְאָבִיו – מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר גָּזָל וַאֲשֶׁר עָשָׁק״ – וְהוּא לֹא גָּזַל וְלֹא עָשַׁק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
But if **he** took a false oath, **but not his father;** or if **his father** took a false oath, **but not he;** or if **he and his father** both took false oaths; **from where** is the heir’s exemption derived? **The verse states:** “He shall restore the item **that he robbed,” and** “the item **that he has acquired through exploitation”** (Leviticus 5:23), **and** in this case the heir **did not rob and did not exploit.** Since the verse states the obligation to pay the additional one-fifth payment when discussing one who robbed or exploited another, and the heir has done neither, he is exempt from payment. This *baraita* states that heirs are not obligated to pay the additional one-fifth payment.


###### Bava Kamma 104b:10
[Bava Kamma 104b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/104b:10)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: לָא קַשְׁיָא; כָּאן שֶׁהוֹדָה, כָּאן שֶׁלֹּא הוֹדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rav Naḥman said** that it is **not difficult. Here,** in the mishna and the first *baraita*, they discuss a case **where** the robber **admitted** his obligation and therefore was required to pay the additional one-fifth payment, and this obligation is transferred to his heir; **there,** in the latter *baraita*, it discusses a case **where he did not admit** his obligation and was never required to pay the additional one-fifth payment.


###### Bava Kamma 104b:11
[Bava Kamma 104b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/104b:11)

אִי לֹא הוֹדָה, קֶרֶן נָמֵי לָא מְשַׁלֵּם! וְכִי תֵּימָא: הָכִי נָמֵי דְּלָא מְשַׁלֵּם; וְהָא מִדְּקָא מְהַדַּר אַחוֹמֶשׁ – לְמֵימְרָא דְּקֶרֶן מְשַׁלֵּם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this answer: **If** the latter *baraita* discusses a case where **he did not admit** his obligation, then the *halakha* would be that the heir **would not pay even the principal,** as the obligation is not known by anyone. **And if you would say** that **indeed** it is so **that he does not pay** the principal, **but** isn’t it understood **from** the fact that the *tanna* **searches for** a source to teach the heir’s exemption from only the additional **one-fifth** payment, **that** it means **to say that he does pay the principal.**


###### Bava Kamma 104b:12
[Bava Kamma 104b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/104b:12)

וְעוֹד תַּנְיָא, וַעֲדַיִין אֲנִי אוֹמֵר: אֵימָתַי הוּא מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן עַל גֶּזֶל אָבִיו – בִּזְמַן שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע הוּא וְאָבִיו. אָבִיו וְלֹא הוּא, הוּא וְלֹא אָבִיו, לֹא הוּא וְלֹא אָבִיו – מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: גְּזֵילָה וָעוֹשֶׁק, אֲבֵידָה וּפִקָּדוֹן – יֵשׁ תַּלְמוּד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara also proves that the heir must pay the principal from the continuation of the same *baraita*. **And further,** it **is taught** in that *baraita*: **And I** would **still say: When does** the heir **pay the principal for his father’s robbery?** It is only **when he and his father** both **took** false **oaths.** But if **his father** took a false oath, **and not he;** or if **he** took a false oath, **but not his father;** or if **neither he nor his father** took false oaths; **from where** is the heir’s obligation to pay the principal derived? **The verse states** the following terms: **“Robbery,” and “exploitation,” “lost item,” and “deposit”** (Leviticus 5:23); and **there is a derivation [*yesh talmud*]** here to derive that the heir is obligated to pay the principal in all of these cases.


###### Bava Kamma 104b:13
[Bava Kamma 104b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/104b:13)

וְיָתֵיב רַב הוּנָא וְקָאָמַר לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבָּה בְּרֵיהּ: ״יֵשׁ תַּלְמוּד״ קָאָמַר מָר, אוֹ ״יִשְׁתַּלְמוּ״ קָאָמַר מָר? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״יֵשׁ תַּלְמוּד״ קָאָמֵינָא, וּמֵרִיבּוּיָא דִּקְרָאֵי אֲמַרִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **And Rav Huna sat and stated this *halakha*,** and **Rabba, his son, said to him:** Was **the Master saying** that **there is a derivation [*yesh talmud*], or** was **the Master saying** that **they will be paid [*yishtalmu*]?** Rav Huna **said to him: I am saying: There is a derivation, and** it is **from the additional** expressions in the **verses** that **I say** it can be derived. It is apparent that an heir is obligated to pay the principal, and this refutes Rav Naḥman’s attempted resolution.


###### Bava Kamma 104b:14
[Bava Kamma 104b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/104b:14)

אֶלָּא מַאי ״לֹא הוֹדָה״? לֹא הוֹדָה אָבִיו, וְהוֹדָה בְּנוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, what** did Rav Naḥman mean when he suggested that the second *baraita* is referring to a case where **he did not admit** his obligation and exempts his heir from paying the additional one-fifth but obligates him to pay the principal? The *baraita* is referring to a case where the **father did not admit, but his son did admit,** and therefore he is obligated to pay the principal.


###### Bava Kamma 104b:15
[Bava Kamma 104b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/104b:15)

וְנִחַיַּיב בְּנוֹ חוֹמֶשׁ אַשְּׁבוּעָה דִידֵיהּ! אָמְרִי: בְּשֶׁאֵין גְּזֵילָה קַיֶּימֶת. אִי בְּשֶׁאֵין גְּזֵילָה קַיֶּימֶת, אֲפִילּוּ קֶרֶן נָמֵי לָא מְשַׁלֵּם! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאִיכָּא אַחְרָיוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** let **his son be liable** to pay the additional **one-fifth** payment **for his own** false **oath.** The Sages **say: In** the case of the *baraita*, it is **where** the **stolen item is no** longer **extant.** Although the false oath was taken, it is not the type of obligation for which one must pay an additional one-fifth payment. The Gemara asks: **If in** the case of the *baraita* it is **where** the **stolen item is no** longer **extant,** the *halakha* should be that the heir **does not pay even** the **principal,** as the *halakha* is that while heirs must return an item stolen by their father, they are not obligated to compensate the owner if the item is no longer extant. The Gemara answers: **No,** the ruling **is necessary** in a case **where there is guaranteed** property, i.e., land, which the heirs inherited from the robber. Heirs are obligated to compensate the owner of a stolen item with inherited land, even if the stolen item itself is no longer extant.


###### Bava Kamma 104b:16
[Bava Kamma 104b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/104b:16)

וְכִי אִיכָּא אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים מַאי הָוֵי? מִלְוָה עַל פֶּה הִיא, וּמִלְוָה עַל פֶּה אֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה לֹא מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁין וְלֹא מִן הַלָּקוֹחוֹת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** even **when there is guaranteed property,** i.e., land, **what of it?** After all, such a debt **is** legally considered **a loan by oral** agreement, **and** the creditor of **a loan by oral** agreement **cannot collect from the heirs** of the debtor, **nor** can he collect **from those who purchased** land from the debtor.


###### Bava Kamma 104b:17
[Bava Kamma 104b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/104b:17)

אָמְרִי:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **say** in response: