Sep 132016

The gemara establishes from the mishna and a braita that heirs need to pay the 1/5 that their fathers owe.  The gemara then brings a braita which implies that they don’t.  2 answers are given to explain in which cases they do and in which they don’t.  Since the mishna establishes that the obligation to return the item directly to its owner only applies when the item owed is more than a pruta.  Rava questions a number of cases in which the value was a pruta and now went down in value or the stolen items we all together a pruta but half was returned.  Rava also asks about chametz that was stolen before Pesach and at the time the robber swore falsely, it was already after Pesach and the item no longer had value.  Do the laws of swearing falsely for theft apply since the chametz has potential value since in the event it gets stolen, the owner needs to pay back the value from when it was stolen or do they not because at this moment, the item exists and it has no value since it is forbidden to benefit from chametz that was around on Pesach.  Raba thought there was an obvious answer that one is obligated because of the financial potential.  Rav Amram questions his answer from a braita and Raba answers it up saying that his opinion and the braita are referring to different circumstances.

Study Guide Bava Kamma 105

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.