POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Bava Kama 105
1) LESS THAN A PERUTAH OF A STOLEN OBJECT
(a) (Mishnah): If Shimon pardoned the entire obligation,
except for less than a Perutah of the principle, (Reuven
need not travel to return it).
2) LESS THAN THE MINIMUM
(b) [Version #1 (Rav Papa): This is only when the stolen
object is not around - if it is around, he must return
it, we are concerned that it will rise in value to a
(c) [Version #2 (Rav Papa): This is even if the stolen object
is around, we are not concerned that it will rise in
value to a Perutah.]
(d) (Rava): Reuven stole 3 (equal) bundles, worth a total of
3 Perutos. They declined in value, they are now worth 2
Perutos. He returned 2 - he must (even travel to) return
(e) Support (Mishnah): One who stole Chametz, and Pesach
passed - he can say, here is your Chametz.
1. Inference: If he did not have the Chametz to return,
he would have to pay its original value, even though
now it is worthless!
(f) Question (Rava): Reuven stole 2 bundles, their total
worth is 1 Perutah. He returned 1 - what is the law?
2. Also in Rava's case - since it was worth a Perutah
when he stole it, he must return it, even though it
is not worth a Perutah now.
1. Do we say that since he is not holding (a Perutah
of) stolen property, he is exempt?
(g) Answer (Rava): He is not holding a Perutah of stolen
property, nor has he returned the theft.
2. Or - since he stole (a Perutah) and has not returned
(a Perutah), he must return the other?
(h) Question: Since he is not holding a Perutah of stolen
property, he has returned all he must return!
(i) Answer: Rava meant, even though he is not holding a
stolen object worth a Perutah, he did not yet fulfill the
Mitzvah of returning (so he must return it).
(a) (Rava): A Nazir who shaved (at the end of his Nezirus)
and left 2 hairs uncut - it is as if he did not shave.
3) OATHS THAT DENY MONEY
(b) Question (Rava): If he shaved 1 of the remaining 2, and
the other fell out - what is the law?
1. Question (Rav Acha mi'Difti): Does Rava ask if a
Nazir may shave 1 hair at a time? (Surely, he may!)
(c) Answer (Rava): Two hairs do not remain, he did not shave.
2. Answer (Ravina): No - he asks when 1 of the
remaining 2 fell out before he shaved the other;
i. Since no hair remains, it is as if he shaved
(and he may drink wine);
ii. Or - since he left 2 hairs (and was obligated
to shave them), and 1 fell out before he shaved
either, he did not fulfill the Mitzvah (and he
may not drink wine).
(d) Question: Since two hairs do not remain, he has shaved
all he must shave!
(e) Answer: Rava meant, even though two hairs do not remain,
he did not yet fulfill the Mitzvah of shaving (so he may
not drink wine).
(f) (Rava): A barrel was punctured, rendering it unable to
block Tum'as Mes (Rashi - from passing to the upper
story, if it rests in the opening in between; Tosfos -
from entering the (earthenware) barrel). If the hole in
the barrel is sealed with dregs, the barrel can block the
1. If he (partially) plugged up the hole with a twig
(so the remaining holes on each side are not large
enough to disqualify a barrel from blocking Tum'ah)
- this only helps if he plasters it;
2. If he used 2 twigs - he must put plaster in between
and on both sides of them.
3. Inference: Without plastering, it is not considered
4. Question: It should be as if he sealed half the hole
(and the remaining hole does not disqualify the
barrel from blocking Tum'ah)!
5. Answer: By twigs, without plastering, they will not
stay in place, it is as if nothing was sealed.
(a) (Rava): Reuven stole Shimon's Chametz, and Pesach passed
- he can say behold, here is your Chametz;
(b) Question (Rava): If he swore falsely (that he did not
steal it), is he liable?
4) DOES DENIAL MAKE ONE A THIEF?
1. Since if the Chametz would be stolen from Reuven, he
would have to pay Shimon, it is as if he swore to
deny money (he is liable);
(c) This was not a question to Rabah.
2. Or - right now, it is here, and it is worthless, his
oath did not matter (he is exempt).
1. (Rabah): Levi told Yehudah 'You stole my ox'; he
(d) Question (Rav Amram - Beraisa): "He denied it" - this
excludes one who admits from the beginning;
2. Levi: Why is it by you?
3. If Yehudah swore 'I am a free watchman' and later
admitted, he is liable, because his oath would have
exempted himself if the ox was lost or stolen;
4. If he swore 'I am a paid watchman' and later
admitted, he is liable, because this would have
exempted him if it was injured or died;
5. If he swore 'I borrowed it' and later admitted, he
is liable, because this would have exempted him if
it died while working.
i. Even though now the animal is here, he is
liable because his oath might have saved
himself money (if it was stolen...);
ii. Similarly, Reuven is liable because his oath
might have saved himself money (if the Chametz
1. Levi: 'You stole my ox'; Yehudah denied it.
(e) Answer (Rabah): The Beraisa is a case of Heilach (he
returns the animal immediately); my law is when the
animal is in the swamp (he does not return it
2. Levi: Why is it by you?
3. Yehudah swore to 1 of the following claims: you (or
your father) sold or gave it to me, it chased after
my cow, it came by itself, I found it straying on
the road, I am a free or paid watchman, I borrowed
it. He later admitted.
4. One might have thought, he is liable - "He denied
it" excludes one who admits from the beginning.
(f) Question (Beraisa): 'You sold it to me' - this is not a
case of admitting from the beginning!
(g) Answer: Yehudah admits that he never paid for it; he
says, take it back as payment.
(h) Question (Beraisa): 'You (or your father) gave it to me'
- this is not a case of admitting from the beginning!
(i) Answer: Yehudah admits that the gift was on condition
that he act nicely to Levi, and he did not fulfill this;
he says, take it back.
(j) Question (Beraisa): 'I found it straying on the road' -
since he knew it was Levi's, he should have returned it -
keeping it is as stealing it!
(k) Answer (Shmuel's father): He claims that he did not know
it was Levi's.
(l) (Beraisa - ben Azai): Reuven asked David to testify about
Reuven's lost object; David swore falsely that he knows
no testimony. Later, David admitted that he knew - there
are 3 cases:
1. 'I knew it was yours, but I did not know that Shimon
found it (perhaps he bought it from you);
(m) Question: What does ben Azai come to teach?
2. 'I knew that Shimon found it, but I did not know
that it was yours;
3. 'I did not know that it was yours, nor that Shimon
i. Question: If so, David swore truthfully!
ii. Correction: Rather, 'I knew it was yours, and
that Shimon found it'.
(n) Answer #1 (Rav Ami): In all 3 cases, the witness is
exempt (from the sacrifice for a false oath of not
(o) Answer #2 (Shmuel): In all 3 cases, he is liable.
(p) They argue as the following Tana'im.
1. (Beraisa): One who imposes an oath on 1 witness that
he does not know testimony (and he swore falsely) -
the witness is exempt (from a sacrifice, because the
testimony of 1 witness cannot force someone to pay);
2. R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon obligates him.
3. Question: On what do they argue?
4. Answer: R. Elazar holds that something which can
cause a loss of money is considered as money; the
first Tana holds, it is not as money.
(a) (Rav Sheshes): One who denies a deposit - he is
considered a thief, he is liable even for Ones.
(b) Support (Beraisa): "And he denied it" - this teaches the
1. Question: Where does the Torah warn not to do this?
(c) Question (Rami bar Chama - Mishnah): We say that a
defendant is prone to swear falsely (and is disqualified
from swearing, so the claimant swears and receives as he
claimed) if he (ever) swore falsely that he does not know
testimony, or about a deposit, or took a vain oath.
2. Answer: "Do not deny".
3. [Version #1 (our text, Tosfos) Suggestion: When the
Beraisa says 'the punishment', it means money
(obligation to pay for Ones).
4. Rejection: No - it means having to swear]
5. [Version #2 (Rashi) Suggestion: The punishment the
Beraisa speaks of is (liability for Ones, this is)
because of his denial.
6. Rejection: No - it is for swearing falsely.]
7. Question: But the end of the Beraisa says, 'And he
swore', implying that the beginning of the Beraisa
does not speak of swearing!
i. (End of the Beraisa): "And he swore falsely" -
this teaches the punishment;
8. Answer: Also in the first clause of the Beraisa
speaks of swearing;
ii. Question: Where does the Torah warn not to do
iii. Answer: "Do not lie".
i. In the latter clause, he later admitted (so he
pays principle, the added fifth and brings an
ii. In the first clause, witnesses testified
against him (and he is liable even for Ones).
1. If one becomes a thief just for denying a deposit,
denial alone should disqualify him from swearing (in
the future), even if he did not swear!
(d) Answer: The case is, the deposit is (an animal) in the
swamp - if he denied without swearing, we assume that he
is not trying to steal, he is just stalling until he can
1. Support (Rav Idi bar Avin): One who denied a loan,
he may testify (we assume he means to stall, not to
(e) Question: But Ilfa taught, an oath acquires (liability
i. One who denied a deposit (when he could have
returned it immediately) is disqualified from
1. Inference: But denial does not acquire!
(f) Answer #1: Here also, the deposit is in the swamp.
(g) Answer #2: When Ilfa says that an oath acquires, he means
as Rav Huna.
1. (Rav Huna citing Rav): Reuven denied owing money to
Shimon and swore; later, witnesses say that he owes
Shimon - he is exempt;
i. "The owner will take, (the defendant) will not
pay" - once the owner received (heard) an oath,
the defendant need not pay.