## Bava Kamma Daf 109a

###### Bava Kamma 109a:1
[Bava Kamma 109a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/109a:1)

בְּחַיָּיו וּבְמוֹתוֹ, אִם מֵת – לֹא יִירָשֶׁנּוּ, וְיַחְזִיר לְבָנָיו אוֹ לְאֶחָיו. וְאִם אֵין לוֹ – לֹוֶה וּבַעֲלֵי חוֹב בָּאִים וְנִפְרָעִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues: If the father stated in his vow that his son may not derive benefit from his property **in his life and in his death,** then even **if** the father then **dies** the son **does not inherit** from **him,** as the prohibition is still in effect. **And** instead of taking his inheritance, **he returns** his portion in the estate **to his sons or to his brothers. And if he does not have** sufficient funds to subsist without his inheritance, he **borrows** money in the amount of the value of his share in the inheritance **and** the **creditors come and are repaid** from his share.


###### Bava Kamma 109a:2
[Bava Kamma 109a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/109a:2)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: אֲפִילּוּ לְאַרְנָקִי שֶׁל צְדָקָה. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: וְצָרִיךְ שֶׁיֹּאמַר: ״זֶה גֶּזֶל אָבִי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** With regard to the *halakha* written in the mishna that one who robs his father pays the principal and the additional one-fifth payment to the father’s heirs, **Rav Yosef says:** One may **even** put this money **in a charity purse** if he so chooses. **Rav Pappa says: And** when giving the money **he must say: This** is what was **robbed** from **my father.**


###### Bava Kamma 109a:3
[Bava Kamma 109a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/109a:3)

אַמַּאי? נִמְחֲלֵיהּ לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ! מִי לָא תְּנַן: מָחַל לוֹ עַל הַקֶּרֶן וְלֹא מָחַל לוֹ עַל הַחוֹמֶשׁ? אַלְמָא בַּר מְחִילָה הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara questions the mishna’s ruling that one who robs his father must return the stolen item to others even if he is the sole heir. **Why** must he do this? **Let him forgive** the debt **to himself;** as the heir, to whom payment is due, he should be able to forgive it. **Didn’t we learn** in a mishna (103a) that in the case of a robber who took a false oath claiming to be innocent and later admitted his liability: If the owner **forgave him concerning the principal, but did not forgive him concerning the** additional **one-fifth** payment, he need not pursue him to repay the remaining debt. **Apparently,** even the principal **is subject to forgiveness,** so why doesn’t he forgive the obligation to himself?


###### Bava Kamma 109a:4
[Bava Kamma 109a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/109a:4)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לָא קַשְׁיָא; הָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, הָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** This is **not difficult. That** mishna is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei HaGelili,** who says that this obligation can be forgiven, while **this** mishna, ruling that a son who robbed his father and is his sole heir cannot forgive the obligation to himself, is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva,** who holds that this obligation cannot be forgiven.


###### Bava Kamma 109a:5
[Bava Kamma 109a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/109a:5)

דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְאִם אֵין לָאִישׁ גֹּאֵל לְהָשִׁיב הָאָשָׁם״ – וְכִי יֵשׁ אָדָם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ גּוֹאֲלִים? אֶלָּא בְּגֶזֶל הַגֵּר הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yoḥanan explains: **As it is taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 10:16) that the verse states with regard to one who steals from one who then died: **“But if the man has no kinsman** to whom **restitution may be made for the guilt,** the restitution for guilt that is made shall be the Lord’s, even the priest’s” (Numbers 5:8). The *baraita* asks: **But is there** any **Jewish person who has no kinsmen?** Since every Jew descends from Jacob our forefather, all Jews have relatives to inherit from them. **Rather,** it must be that **the verse is speaking of robbery of a convert** who never married or had children as a Jew, and in any case is no longer legally related to his gentile family; he has no heirs. In this situation the Torah instructs one who robbed from a now-deceased convert to return the stolen item to a priest.


###### Bava Kamma 109a:6
[Bava Kamma 109a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/109a:6)

הֲרֵי שֶׁגָּזַל הַגֵּר, וְנִשְׁבַּע לוֹ; וְשָׁמַע שֶׁמֵּת הַגֵּר, וְהָיָה מַעֲלֶה כַּסְפּוֹ וַאֲשָׁמוֹ לִירוּשָׁלַיִם; וּפָגַע בְּאוֹתוֹ הַגֵּר, וּזְקָפוֹ עָלָיו בְּמִלְוָה, וּמֵת – זָכָה הַלָּה בְּמַה שֶּׁבְּיָדוֹ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֵין לוֹ תַּקָּנָה עַד שֶׁיּוֹצִיא גְּזֵילוֹ מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: In the case of one **who robbed a convert and took** a false **oath to him** saying that he did not rob him, **and** then **heard that the convert died; and he was bringing his money,** for the principal and the additional one-fifth payment, **and his guilt-offering up to Jerusalem** to pay his debt to the priests and sacrifice his offering, **and he encountered that same convert,** who in fact had not died; **and,** instead of having the robber pay the money right away the convert **established it as a loan for** the robber, **and** then the convert **died,** leaving his property ownerless, as he had no heirs; **this** robber **acquires** all **that** is **in his possession,** as it is now a loan, not money to pay back the theft; this is **the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Rabbi Akiva says:** The robber **has no remedy until he will remove his stolen item from his possession.**


###### Bava Kamma 109a:7
[Bava Kamma 109a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/109a:7)

לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי – לָא שְׁנָא לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ לָא שְׁנָא לַאֲחֵרִים, מָצֵי מָחֵיל; וּלְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא – לָא שְׁנָא לַאֲחֵרִים וְלָא שְׁנָא לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ, לָא מָצֵי מָחֵיל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yoḥanan explains their respective opinions. **According to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei HaGelili,** there **is no difference** if the one to whom payment is due forgives the return of a stolen item **to himself,** such as in this case of a convert who died or in the case of the mishna where a son robbed his father who then died, and there **is no difference** if he forgives the return of a stolen item **to others.** In either case, he **can forgive** payment. **And according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva,** there **is no difference** if the one to whom payment is due forgives the return of a stolen item **to others** and there **is no difference** if he forgives the return of a stolen item **to himself.** In either case, he **cannot forgive** payment.


###### Bava Kamma 109a:8
[Bava Kamma 109a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/109a:8)

וּלְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי – הוּא הַדִּין דַּאֲפִילּוּ לֹא זְקָפוֹ בְּמִלְוָה, וְהַאי דְּקָתָנֵי ״זְקָפוֹ עָלָיו בְּמִלְוָה״ – לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחוֹ דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דַּאֲפִילּוּ זְקָפָן עָלָיו בְּמִלְוָה, אֵין לוֹ תַּקָּנָה עַד שֶׁיּוֹצִיא גְּזֵילָה מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yoḥanan continues his analysis: **And according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei** HaGelili, **the same is true,** i.e., the *halakha* would also be, **that** no liability would remain in the case of the convert **even had he not established** the robbery debt **as a loan,** as the robber could forgive the obligation to himself once the convert died. **And** the fact **that** the *baraita* **teaches** its *halakha* in a case where he **established it as a loan for** the robber **is to convey to you the far-reaching nature of** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva: That even** if he **established it as a loan for him,** in which case it could be considered as though the robber had returned the stolen item and now has a standard loan debt, nevertheless, the robber **has no remedy until he will remove his stolen item from his possession,** so as to not benefit from his act of robbery.


###### Bava Kamma 109a:9
[Bava Kamma 109a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/109a:9)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: אִי הָכִי, לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי – לַשְׁמְעִינַן לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן לַאֲחֵרִים! לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא – לַשְׁמְעִינַן לַאֲחֵרִים דְּלָא מָצֵי מָחֵיל, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ דְּלָא מָצֵי מָחֵיל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheshet objects to this** interpretation of the *baraita*: **If so,** then **according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, let** the mishna on 103a, which indicates that one can forgive the principal payment of a robbery, **teach us** instead that the robbery victim can forgive the obligation **to himself, and** it would be understood that **all the more so** one can forgive the obligation **to others.** And **according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva,** which Rabbi Yoḥanan explains to be the opinion stated in the mishna here, **let it teach us that one cannot forgive** the obligation **to others, and** it would be understood **all the more so** with regard to the robber, **that** he **cannot forgive** the obligation **to himself.**


###### Bava Kamma 109a:10
[Bava Kamma 109a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/109a:10)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: הָא וְהָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי; כִּי קָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי דְּמָצֵי מָחֵיל – לַאֲחֵרִים, אֲבָל לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ – לָא מָצֵי מָחֵיל. אֶלָּא אַמַּאי זָכָה הַלָּה בְּמַה שֶּׁבְּיָדוֹ? מִשּׁוּם דִּזְקָפָן עָלָיו בְּמִלְוָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Sheshet said: That** mishna **and this** mishna are both in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. When Rabbi Yosei HaGelili is saying that one can forgive** the return of a stolen item, he meant specifically forgiving the obligation **to others, but** he **cannot forgive** the obligation **to himself.** The Gemara asks: **But** if that is the *halakha*, **why did this** one who robbed a convert who subsequently died **acquire** all **that** is **in his possession? Because** the convert **established it as a loan for him,** and henceforth it is no longer considered stolen property, but a standard loan debt.


###### Bava Kamma 109a:11
[Bava Kamma 109a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/109a:11)

רָבָא אָמַר: הָא וְהָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא; כִּי אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דְּלָא מָצֵי מָחֵיל – לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ, אֲבָל לַאֲחֵרִים – מָצֵי מָחֵיל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara offers a different explanation. **Rava said: That** mishna **and this** mishna are both in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva. When Rabbi Akiva says that** he **cannot forgive** the return of a stolen item he meant specifically forgiving the obligation **to himself,** as in the case of the convert, **but** he **can forgive** the obligation **to others.**