Bava Kamma - Daf 103
- הלוקח שדה בשם חבירו
A Baraisa on the previous Daf taught that if one buys a field in his friend’s name, אין כופין אותו למכור – we do not force him to sell. But if he told him, "על מנת" – on condition to sell, כופין אותו למכור – we force him to sell. After several interpretations are rejected, Abaye explains the case is where the buyer declared (untruthfully) that he bought it on the Reish Gelusa’s behalf (to discourage potential protesters). The Baraisa means we do not force the seller to “sell it a second time,” i.e., write him another document identifying him as the true owner. Although the buyer can argue that the seller understood that he only claimed to purchase for the Reish Gelusa as a security measure, and realized the buyer wanted a second document, the seller can respond that he thought the buyer arranged with the Reish Gelusa to write a שטר for him. However, if the buyer stipulated that the seller would write him another document, we force him to. This means he said to witnesses in the seller’s presence: חזו דשטרא אחרינא קא בעינא – Note that I want another document, intimating that he wants the seller to write it.
- One who swears falsely denying a robbery
The next Mishnah states: הגוזל את חבירו שוה פרוטה – One who robs from his fellow in the value of a perutah, ונשבע לו – and then swears falsely to him denying the robbery, but later confesses (and is liable to pay the principal and an additional fifth and bring a korban asham) יוליכנו אחריו אפילו למדי – he must bring [the payment] after him, even to Madai. He cannot give it to the victim’s son, nor to his own shaliach, but may give it to a shaliach of Beis Din (a takanah enacted to encourage his repentance). If the victim dies, he must bring the money to his heirs. The Mishnah continues that if the principal was paid (or forgiven), but not the additional fifth, or less than a perutah’s-worth of principal remains, he need not bring the remaining payment to him. If the חומש was paid (or forgiven), but not the principal, or even just one perutah’s-worth of the principal, he must still bring it to him, even to מדי.
- גזל אחד מחמשה ואינו יודע איזה מהן
The Mishnah taught that one must ensure payment reaches his robbery victim after he swears to deny it. The Gemara asks that this does not fit with either opinion in a Mishnah: גזל אחד מחמשה – One who robbed one of five people, ואינו יודע איזה מהן – but does not know which one of them it was, and each of them claims it was he, Rebbe Tarfon says: מניח גזילה ביניהם ומסתלק – he places the robbed item between them and removes himself. Rebbe Akiva says: לא זו דרך מוציאתו מידי עבירה – This is not the way to remove him from transgression. עד שישלם גזילה לכל אחד [ואחד] – He has not fulfilled his obligation until he pays the robbed item’s value to every one of them. The Gemara assumes that their machlokes applies whether the robber swore falsely or not, so the Mishnah does not accord with either opinion!?
The Gemara attempts to explain that their machlokes only applies when he did swear falsely, or alternatively, only when he did not swear falsely. However, both interpretations are disproven, and Rashi says we revert to the original assumption that they argue in both cases. Rava explains the Mishnah differently on the next Daf.
