The gemara establishes from the mishna and a braita that heirs need to pay the 1\/5 that their fathers owe. \u00a0The gemara then brings a braita which implies that they don’t. \u00a02 answers are given to explain in which cases they do and in which they don’t. \u00a0Since 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. \u00a0Rava questions a number of cases in which the value was a pruta and now went down in value or the stolen items we\u00a0all together a pruta but half was returned. \u00a0Rava also asks about chametz that was stolen before Pesach and at the time the robber\u00a0swore falsely, it was already after Pesach and the item no longer had value. \u00a0Do 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. \u00a0Raba thought there was an obvious answer that one is obligated because of the financial potential. \u00a0Rav Amram questions his answer from a braita and Raba answers it up saying that his opinion and the braita are referring to different circumstances.<\/p>\n