## Bava Kamma Daf 105a

###### Bava Kamma 105a:1
[Bava Kamma 105a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/105a:1)

בְּשֶׁעָמַד בַּדִּין. אִי בְּשֶׁעָמַד בַּדִּין, אֲפִילּוּ חוֹמֶשׁ נָמֵי מְשַׁלֵּם! אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: לְפִי שֶׁאֵין מְשַׁלְּמִין חוֹמֶשׁ עַל כְּפִירַת שִׁעְבּוּד קַרְקָעוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The reference here is to a case **in which** the father had already **stood trial** and was obligated to pay. In such a case, the debt is considered like a loan with a promissory note, which a creditor may collect from the debtor’s heirs. The Gemara rejects this: **If** it is a case **in which** the father had already **stood trial** and was obligated to pay, then the heir, who took a false oath and later confessed, would have to **pay even** the additional **one-fifth** payment **as well,** as this would be akin to any monetary obligation; but the *baraita* rules that he is obligated to pay only the principal. **Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said:** The heir is exempt **because one does not pay** the additional **one-fifth** payment **for the denial of** a debt that is secured by **a lien on land.**


###### Bava Kamma 105a:2
[Bava Kamma 105a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/105a:2)

רָבָא אָמַר: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיְתָה דִּיסַקַּיָּיא שֶׁל אָבִיו מוּפְקֶדֶת בְּיַד אֲחֵרִים; קֶרֶן מְשַׁלֵּם – דְּהָא אִיתֵיהּ, חוֹמֶשׁ לָא מְשַׁלֵּם – דְּכִי אִישְׁתְּבַע בְּקוּשְׁטָא אִישְׁתְּבַע, דְּהָא לָא הֲוָה יָדַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said** a different explanation: **With what are we dealing here?** We are dealing with a case **where** the stolen item is still extant, yet the heir is exempt because **his father’s sack [*disakaya*]** containing the stolen item **was deposited in the possession of others.** Accordingly, the heir **pays the principal, since** the stolen item **is** extant, but **he does not pay** the additional **one-fifth** payment **because when he took an oath** that it was not in his possession, **he took an oath truthfully, as he did not know** that his father had stolen the item.


###### Bava Kamma 105a:3
[Bava Kamma 105a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/105a:3)

חוּץ מִפָּחוֹת שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה בַּקֶּרֶן כּוּ׳. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין גְּזֵילָה קַיֶּימֶת, אֲבָל גְּזֵילָה קַיֶּימֶת – צָרִיךְ לֵילֵךְ אַחֲרָיו; חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא תִּיַּיקֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that if the robbery victim forgave the robber concerning both payments, **excepting less than** the **value of one *peruta* of the principal,** he need not pursue him in order to return the remaining debt. **Rav Pappa says: They taught** that the robber is not obligated to pursue the robbery victim **only when** the **stolen item is not extant, but** if the **stolen item is** still **extant, he must pursue him** to return it, as **we are concerned** that **perhaps** the stolen item **will appreciate** in value, and the debt he owes will exceed the value of one *peruta*.


###### Bava Kamma 105a:4
[Bava Kamma 105a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/105a:4)

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לָא שְׁנָא גְּזֵילָה קַיֶּימֶת וְלָא שְׁנָא שֶׁאֵין גְּזֵילָה קַיֶּימֶת – אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לֵילֵךְ אַחֲרָיו; לְשֶׁמָּא תִּיַּיקֵּר לָא חָיְישִׁינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**There are** those **who say** that **Rav Pappa said:** The *halakha* **is not different** when the **stolen item is extant, and** it **is not different when** the **stolen item is not extant.** In either case **he does not need to pursue him** because **we are not concerned that perhaps it will appreciate** in value.


###### Bava Kamma 105a:5
[Bava Kamma 105a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/105a:5)

אָמַר רָבָא: גָּזַל שָׁלֹשׁ אֲגוּדּוֹת בְּשָׁלֹשׁ פְּרוּטוֹת, וְהוּזְלוּ וְעָמְדוּ עַל שְׁתַּיִם; אִם הֶחְזִיר לוֹ שְׁתַּיִם – חַיָּיב לְהַחֲזִיר לוֹ אַחֶרֶת. וְתַנָּא תּוּנָא: גָּזַל חָמֵץ וְעָבַר עָלָיו הַפֶּסַח – אוֹמֵר לוֹ: ״הֲרֵי שֶׁלְּךָ לְפָנֶיךָ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites another ruling with regard to a stolen item worth less than one *peruta*. **Rava says:** If one **robbed** another of **three bundles** of goods that **were** worth **three *perutot*** in total, **and they depreciated** in value **and** their value **stood at two** *perutot*, even **if he returned two** bundles **to** the robbery victim he **is obligated to return the other** bundle. **And the *tanna*** of the mishna also **taught** (96b): If one **robbed** another of **leavened bread, and Passover elapsed over it,** and it is therefore prohibited to derive benefit from it, the robber **says to** the victim: **That which is yours is before you,** and he is not required to pay compensation, despite the fact that the robbery victim has suffered a monetary loss.


###### Bava Kamma 105a:6
[Bava Kamma 105a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/105a:6)

טַעְמָא דְּאִיתֵיהּ בְּעֵינֵיהּ; הָא לֵיתֵיהּ בְּעֵינֵיהּ, אַף עַל גַּב דְּהַשְׁתָּא לָאו מָמוֹנָא, כֵּיוָן דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא מָמוֹנָא הוּא – בָּעֵי שַׁלּוֹמֵי; הָכָא נָמֵי, אַף עַל גַּב דְּהַשְׁתָּא לֹא שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה [כֵּיוָן דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא הָוֵי שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה] – בָּעֵי שַׁלּוֹמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the proof from the mishna: It may be inferred that **the reason** that he is not required to pay compensation is **that** the bread **is** still **there in its unadulterated** form; **but** if it **is not there in its unadulterated** form, **even though now it is not** worth **money, since it was** worth **money initially,** at the time of the robbery, **he is required to pay. Here too, even though** the third bundle is **not worth one *peruta* now, since initially it was worth one *peruta*, he is required to pay.**


###### Bava Kamma 105a:7
[Bava Kamma 105a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/105a:7)

בָּעֵי רָבָא: גָּזַל שְׁתֵּי אֲגוּדּוֹת, בִּפְרוּטָה וְהֶחְזִיר לוֹ אַחַת מֵהֶן – מַהוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן: הַשְׁתָּא לֵיכָּא גְּזֵילָה; אוֹ דִלְמָא, הָא לָא [אַ]הְדַּר גְּזֵילָה דַּהֲוַאי גַּבֵּיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raises a dilemma:** If one **robbed** another of **two bundles** of goods that **were** worth **one *peruta*** in total, **and he returned one of them to** the robbery victim, **what is** the *halakha*? **Do we say** that **now there is no** longer **a stolen item** in the possession of the robber, as the remaining bundle is worth less than one *peruta*, and he has therefore fulfilled his obligation to return the stolen item; **or perhaps** we say that since the robber **did not return** the **stolen item that was in his possession** in its entirety, he is obligated to return the second bundle?


###### Bava Kamma 105a:8
[Bava Kamma 105a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/105a:8)

הֲדַר פַּשְׁטַהּ: גְּזֵילָה אֵין כָּאן, הֲשָׁבָה אֵין כָּאן. אִי גְּזֵילָה אֵין כָּאן – הֲשָׁבָה יֵשׁ כָּאן! הָכִי קָאָמַר: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁגְּזֵילָה אֵין כָּאן, מִצְוַת הֲשָׁבָה אֵין כָּאן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava himself **then resolves** the dilemma: **There is no stolen item here,** as the remaining bundle is worth less than one *peruta*; **there is no returning** of a stolen item **here.** The Gemara expresses surprise at this expression: **If there is no stolen item here,** as what remains is insignificant, it follows that **there is** fulfillment of the mitzva of **returning** the stolen item **here,** and the robber ought to be exempt, as he is no longer considered to be in possession of a stolen item. The Gemara explains that **this is** what Rava **is saying: Even though** the robber is exempt from returning the second bundle, as **there is no stolen item here, there is** nevertheless **no** fulfillment of the **mitzva of returning** a stolen item **here,** since the returned bundle was worth less than one *peruta* as well.


###### Bava Kamma 105a:9
[Bava Kamma 105a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/105a:9)

וְאָמַר רָבָא, הֲרֵי אָמְרוּ: נָזִיר שֶׁגִּילַּח וְשִׁיֵּיר שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת – לֹא עָשָׂה וְלֹא כְלוּם; בָּעֵי רָבָא: גִּילַּח אַחַת וְנָשְׁרָה אַחַת, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא מִדִּיפְתִּי לְרָבִינָא: נָזִיר שֶׁגִּילַּח אַחַת אַחַת קָא מִבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ לְרָבָא?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Following Rava’s previous dilemma, the Gemara cites a similar dilemma raised by Rava. **And Rava says:** The Sages **said** that **a nazirite who shaved** his head as required **but left two hairs** uncut **has done nothing,** and his obligation to shave his head has not been fulfilled. **Rava raises a dilemma:** If a nazirite shaved and left two hairs, and afterward he **shaved one** of them, **and** the other **one fell out** of its own accord, **what is** the *halakha*? Is this considered shaving one’s entire head or not? **Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina: Is Rava raising a dilemma** as to whether one can **shave** his head **one** hair **by one** hair? How does this case differ from that of one who shaves his entire head one hair at a time, which is a fulfillment of his obligation?


###### Bava Kamma 105a:10
[Bava Kamma 105a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/105a:10)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא צְרִיכָא, כְּגוֹן שֶׁנָּשְׁרָ[ה] אַחַת מֵהֶן, וְגִילַּח אַחַת; מִי אָמְרִינַן: הַשְׁתָּא מִיהַת הָא לֵיכָּא שִׁיעוּר; אוֹ דִלְמָא, הָא לָאו גִּילּוּחַ הוּא – דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא הָא שַׁיַּיר שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת, וְהַשְׁתָּא כִּי גִּילַּח לָא הָוֵי שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Ravina **said to him: No,** a resolution to Rava’s dilemma **is necessary** in a case **where one of** the hairs **fell out** first, **and** then **he shaved** the other **one. Do we say** that **now, in any event, there is no measure** of hair left on his head that requires shaving, as one remaining hair is not significant, and he has therefore fulfilled his obligation; **or perhaps** we say that **this is not** considered **shaving, as initially he left** the significant amount of **two hairs** uncut, **and now when he shaves** a second time, **there are not two hairs** left for him to shave, and this does not qualify as shaving?


###### Bava Kamma 105a:11
[Bava Kamma 105a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/105a:11)

הֲדַר פַּשְׁטַהּ: שֵׂעָר אֵין כָּאן, גִּילּוּחַ אֵין כָּאן. אִי שֵׂעָר אֵין כָּאן – גִּילּוּחַ יֵשׁ כָּאן! הָכִי קָאָמַר: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשֵּׂעָר אֵין כָּאן, מִצְוַת גִּילּוּחַ אֵין כָּאן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava himself **then resolves** the dilemma: **There is no hair here; there is no shaving here.** The Gemara expresses surprise at this expression: **If there is no hair here,** then **there is shaving here,** as no hair remains. The Gemara explains that **this is what** Rava **is saying: Even though there is no hair here,** as only one hair remains, nevertheless **there is no mitzva of shaving here,** as he failed to shave it all on the first attempt, and the second time he shaved less than the required amount.


###### Bava Kamma 105a:12
[Bava Kamma 105a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/105a:12)

וְאָמַר רָבָא, הֲרֵי אָמְרוּ: חָבִית שֶׁנִּיקְּבָה, וּסְתָמוּהָ שְׁמָרִים – הִצִּילוּהָ. בָּעֵי רָבָא: אָגַף חֶצְיָהּ, מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara cites another dilemma raised by Rava. **And Rava says:** The Sages **said** (*Kelim* 10:6) that with regard to a sealed earthenware **barrel that was punctured and was** then **sealed by sediments** from its contents, the sediments have effectively **saved** the contents of the barrel from contracting ritual impurity if the barrel were to come into contact with an impure item, as it is once again considered a sealed barrel. **Rava raises a dilemma:** If one **sealed half of** the hole, **what is** the *halakha*? Do we say that since the hole is not currently large enough to allow ritual impurity to penetrate, the barrel is considered sealed; or perhaps we say that since the hole was initially large enough to allow impurity to penetrate, and it has not yet been sealed completely, the barrel retains its status and is not considered sealed?


###### Bava Kamma 105a:13
[Bava Kamma 105a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/105a:13)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יֵימַר לְרַב אָשֵׁי: לָאו מִשְׁנָתֵנוּ הִיא זוֹ? דִּתְנַן: חָבִית שֶׁנִּיקְּבָה וּסְתָמוּהָ שְׁמָרִים – הִצִּילוּהָ. פְּקָקָהּ בִּזְמוֹרָה – עַד שֶׁיְּמָרַח. הָיוּ בָּהּ שְׁתַּיִם – עַד שֶׁיְּמָרַח מִן הַצְּדָדִים, וּבֵין זְמוֹרָה לַחֲבֶירְתָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes that **Rav Yeimar said to Rav Ashi: Isn’t this** *halakha* stated explicitly in **our mishna,** quoted by Rava above? **As we learned** in the continuation of that mishna: With regard to an earthenware **barrel that was punctured and was** then **sealed by sediments,** the sediments have effectively **saved** the contents of the barrel from contracting ritual impurity. If it was not sealed by sediments and instead one **plugged** the hole **with a vine,** its contents remain susceptible to contracting ritual impurity **until he smears** clay around the uncovered parts of the hole. If **there were two** vines placed in the hole in order to plug it, its contents remain susceptible to contracting ritual impurity **until he smears** clay **from the sides** of the hole inward, **and between one vine and the other.**


###### Bava Kamma 105a:14
[Bava Kamma 105a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/105a:14)

טַעְמָא דְּמָרַח, הָא לָא מָרַח – לָא; אַמַּאי? וְתִיהְוֵי כִּי אָגַף חֶצְיָהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Yeimar explains: **The reason** its contents become impervious to contracting ritual impurity is **that he smeared** clay over the uncovered sections of the hole, **but** if **he did not smear** clay over the uncovered sections, the contents would **not** be impervious to contracting ritual impurity. **Why** should this not be like the case in Rava’s dilemma? **But let it be** considered, when one plugs the hole with the vine, **as** though **one** had **sealed half of** the hole, since there is no apparent difference between a hole that is half-sealed and a hole that is partially plugged with a vine. Accordingly, Rava should not have stated his dilemma, as it is clear from the mishna that if the hole is only partially covered, the contents of the barrel are susceptible to contracting ritual impurity.


###### Bava Kamma 105a:15
[Bava Kamma 105a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/105a:15)

אָמְרִי: הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם – אִי לָא מָרַח לָא קָאֵי, אָגַף חֶצְיָהּ – בְּמִידֵּי דְּקָאֵי קָאֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **say** in response: **How can** these cases **be compared? There, if he does not smear** clay around the vines, the vine **will not remain** in place. By contrast, in a case where **he sealed half of it with a substance that remains** in place, as in Rava’s dilemma, the seal **remains** in place and could be considered a seal. Rava’s dilemma remains unresolved.


###### Bava Kamma 105a:16
[Bava Kamma 105a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/105a:16)

וְאָמַר רָבָא, הֲרֵי אָמְרוּ: גָּזַל חָמֵץ וְעָבַר עָלָיו הַפֶּסַח – אוֹמֵר לוֹ: ״הֲרֵי שֶׁלְּךָ לְפָנֶיךָ״. בָּעֵי רָבָא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara cites another dilemma raised by Rava. **And Rava says:** The Sages **said** that if one **robbed** another of **leavened bread, and Passover elapsed over it,** and it is therefore prohibited to derive benefit from it, the robber **may say to** the victim: **That which is yours is before you. Rava raises a dilemma:**