Bava Kamma - Daf 105
- Returning the remaining bundle worth less than a perutah
Rava taught: if someone stole three bundles worth three perutos, and they decreased to a total value of two perutos, and he returned two of them, he must still return the other one, despite being worth less than a perutah, since it had a perutah’s value when it was stolen. This is supported from a Mishnah teaching that if one stole chametz, and Pesach passed over it so it is now prohibited in benefit, he may return it to the victim. This implies that if it was not extant, כיון דמעיקרא ממונא הוא בעי שלומי – since originally it had monetary value, he must pay its original value, even though it is currently worthless. Here, too, since the bundle was originally worth a perutah, he must pay for it (or return it if it is extant).
Rava asked: if one stole two bundles jointly worth a perutah, and returned one, what is the halachah? Is he exempt from returning it, since he does not have a stolen item worth a perutah, or do we say he has not returned anything, since what he returned was worth less than a perutah? He concludes: אף על פי שגזילה אין כאן – Even though there is no robbed item here, מצות השבה אין כאן – there is no fulfillment of the mitzvah of returning a stolen item.
- One who falsely swears he did not steal chametz which is now worthless
Rava asked: נשבע עליו מהו – if one swore falsely about having stolen [chametz] which had become forbidden in benefit, what is the halachah? Do we say, since if it would be stolen from him, he would have to pay its original value, it is considered denying a monetary liability? Or do we say that since the chametz is here and can be returned in its worthless form, it is not a monetary denial? Rabbah was certain of the answer to this question: if one says to another, “You stole my ox,” and the defendant denies it, and explains that he is holding the ox as a שומר חנם, exempt him, he is liable for an asham. The same would apply to denying having stolen chametz. and falsely swears so, he is liable for a korban asham, שהרי פטר עצמו מגניבה ואבידה – because he exempted himself from liability for theft or loss of the ox, by swearing falsely that he was a שומר חנם and not a thief. Although the ox is currently in his possession, and he has not denied an actual obligation, since if it would be stolen his oath would
- הכופר בפקדון נעשה עליו גזלן וחייב באונסין
Rav Sheishess said: הכופר בפקדון – One who falsely denies having a deposit in his possession, נעשה עליו גזלן – has become a robber through his denial, even without swearing, וחייב באונסין – and is liable for unavoidable mishaps which befall it. Rami bar Chama challenged him from a Mishnah, which lists someone who swore falsely to deny a פקדון as someone who is חשוד על השבועה – suspect in regard to oaths. According to Rav Sheishess, he is considered a robber (who is disqualified from swearing) through his mere denial, even without swearing!? The Gemara answers that the Mishnah’s case is where the פקדון was in a swamp, and his denial was not to steal it, but to stall for time until he retrieves it. When he denies a פקדון in his possession, he is immediately considered a robber. Rav Idi bar Avin’s ruling proves this distinction: הכופר במלוה כשר לעדות – One who denies owing a loan is still qualified for giving testimony, since he may be stalling for time to repay the spent money, בפקדון פסול לעדות – but for falsely denying holding a deposit, he is disqualified for testimony, since it is in his possession.
