Bava Kamma — Daf 105a

בשעמד בדין אי בשעמד בדין אפילו חומש נמי משלם אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע לפי שאין משלמין חומש על כפירת שעבוד קרקעות

רבא אמר הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שהיתה דיסקייא של אביו מופקדת ביד אחרים קרן משלם דהא איתיה חומש לא משלם דכי אישתבע בקושטא אישתבע דהא לא הוה ידע:

חוץ מפחות שוה פרוטה בקרן כו': אמר רב פפא לא שנו אלא שאין גזילה קיימת אבל גזילה קיימת צריך לילך אחריו חיישינן שמא תייקר

איכא דאמרי אמר רב פפא לא שנא גזילה קיימת ולא שנא שאין גזילה קיימת אינו צריך לילך אחריו לשמא תייקר לא חיישינן

אמר רבא גזל שלש אגודות בשלש פרוטות והוזלו ועמדו על שתים אם החזיר לו שתים חייב להחזיר לו אחרת ותנא תונא גזל חמץ ועבר עליו הפסח אומר לו הרי שלך לפניך

טעמא דאיתיה בעיניה הא ליתיה בעיניה אע"ג דהשתא לאו ממונא כיון דמעיקרא ממונא הוא בעי שלומי הכא נמי אף על גב דהשתא לא שוה פרוטה [כיון דמעיקרא הוי שוה פרוטה] בעי שלומי

בעי רבא גזל שתי אגודות בפרוטה והחזיר לו אחת מהן מהו מי אמרינן השתא ליכא גזילה או דלמא הא לא הדר גזילה דהואי גביה

הדר פשטה גזילה אין כאן השבה אין כאן אי גזילה אין כאן השבה יש כאן הכי קאמר אף על פי שגזילה אין כאן מצות השבה אין כאן

ואמר רבא הרי אמרו נזיר שגילח ושייר שתי שערות לא עשה ולא כלום בעי רבא גילח אחת ונשרה אחת מהו אמר ליה רב אחא מדיפתי לרבינא נזיר שגילח אחת אחת קא מבעיא ליה לרבא

אמר ליה לא צריכא כגון שנשר אחת מהן וגילח אחת מי אמרינן השתא מיהת הא ליכא שיעור או דלמא הא לאו גילוח הוא דמעיקרא הא שייר שתי שערות והשתא כי גילח לא הוי ב' שערות

הדר פשטה שער אין כאן גילוח אין כאן אי שער אין כאן גילוח יש כאן הכי קאמר אע"פ ששער אין כאן מצות גילוח אין כאן

ואמר רבא הרי אמרו חבית שניקבה וסתמוה שמרים הצילוה בעי רבא אגף חציה מהו

א"ל רב יימר לרב אשי לאו משנתנו היא זו דתנן חבית שניקבה וסתמוה שמרים הצילוה פקקה בזמורה עד שימרח היו בה שתים עד שימרח מן הצדדים ובין זמורה לחבירתה

טעמא דמרח הא לא מרח לא אמאי ותיהוי כי אגף חציה

אמרי הכי השתא התם אי לא מרח לא קאי אגף חציה במידי דקאי קאי

ואמר רבא הרי אמרו גזל חמץ ועבר עליו הפסח אומר לו הרי שלך לפניך בעי רבא

that [before the father died] he had already appeared in court  [and liability was established against him].  But if he had already appeared in court  [and liability had been established on the denial of which the son took a false oath])  why then should the son not pay even the Fifth?  — Said R. Huna the son of R. Joshua: Because a Fifth is not paid for the denial of a liability which is secured upon real estate.  But Raba said [that the misappropriated article was still extant in this case as the reason that the son need not pay a Fifth for his own false oath is because] we were dealing here with a case where [the misappropriated article was kept in] his father's bag  that was deposited with others.  The principal therefore must be paid since it was subsequently discovered to be in existence, whereas the Fifth has not to be paid since when the son took the oath he meant to swear truly, as at that time he did not know [that there was a misappropriated article in the estate]. WITH THE EXCEPTION, HOWEVER, OF LESS THAN THE VALUE OF A PERUTAH [DUE] ON ACCOUNT OF THE PRINCIPAL HE WOULD NOT HAVE TO GO AFTER HIM. R. Papa said: This Mishnaic ruling can apply only where the misappropriated article was no more in existence, for where the misappropriated article was still in existence the robber would still have to go after him, as there is a possibility that it may have risen in value.  Others, however, said that R. Papa stated that there was no difference whether the misappropriated article was in existence or not in existence, as in all cases he would not have to go after him, since we disregard the possibility that it may rise in price. Raba said: If one misappropriated three bundles [of goods altogether] worth three perutahs, but which subsequently fell in price and become worth only two, and it so happened that he restored two bundles, he would still have to restore the third: this could also be proved from the [following] teaching of the Tanna:  If one misappropriated leaven and Passover meanwhile came and went,  he may say to the plaintiff, Here there is thine before thee.  The reason evidently is that the misappropriated article is intact, whereas if it were not intact, even though it has at present no pecuniary value, he would have to pay on account of the fact that it originally  had some pecuniary value. So also in this case,  though the bundle is now not of the value of a perutah, since originally it was of the value of a perutah he must pay for it. Raba raised the question: What would be the law where he misappropriated two bundles amounting in value to a perutah and returned the plaintiff one? Do we lay stress on the fact that there is not now with him a misappropriated object of the value of a perutah,  or do we say that since he did not restore the robbery  which was with him he did not discharge his duty?  Raba himself on second thoughts solved it thus: There is neither a robbery here  nor is there the performance of restoration here.  But if there is no robbery here,  is it not surely because there was restoration here? — What he meant was this: Though there remained no robbery here,  the performance of the injunction of restoration  was similarly not performed here. Raba said: It has been definitely stated  that a Nazirite who performed the duty of shaving  but left two hairs unshaved performed nothing at all [of the injunction]. Raba asked: What would be the law where he [subsequently] shaved one of the two and the other fell out of its own accord? — Said R. Aha of Difti  to Rabina: How could it have been doubtful to Raba whether a Nazirite would have performed his duty by shaving one hair after another?  — He replied:  No; the query has application where, e.g., one of the two hairs fell out of itself  and the other was shaved by him: Shall we say that [since] now there is no minimum of hair left unshaved [the duty of shaving has been performed], or was there perhaps no performance of shaving since originally he had left two hairs [unshaved] and when he [made up his mind to] shave them now, there were not two hairs to be shaved? On second thoughts Raba himself solved it thus: There is neither any hair here, nor is there the performance of shaving here. But if there is no hair [left] here, was not the duty of shaving surely performed here? — What he meant was this: Though there remained no hair, yet the performance of the injunction of shaving was not performed here. Raba also said: It has been stated that if an earthenware barrel  had a hole which was filled up with lees, they would render it safe [and secure  while in a tent where a corpse of a human being was kept, as the barrel would be considered to have a covering tightly fastened upon it].  Raba thereupon asked: What would be the law where only half of the hole was blocked up?  Said R. Yemar to R. Ashi: Is this not covered by our Mishnah? For we have learnt: 'If an earthenware barrel  had a hole which was filled up with lees, they would render it safe [and secure  while in a tent where a corpse of a human being was kept]. If it was corked up with vine shoots  it would not do unless it was smeared with mortar.  If there were two vine shoots corking it up they would have to be smeared on all sides as well as between one shoot and another.'  Now the reason why this is so is because it was smeared, so that if it would not have been smeared this would not have been so. But why should this not be like a case where half of the hole was blocked up?  — It might, however, be said that there is no comparison at all: for in that case if he did not smear it the blocking would not hold at all,  whereas here  half of the hole was blocked up with such a material as would hold. Raba further said: It was stated: If one misappropriated leaven and Passover came and went, he may say to him. Here there is thine before thee.  Raba thereupon asked: