Source: http://halakhah.com/babakamma/babakamma_105.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 01:49:46+00:00

Document:
that [before the father died] he had already appeared in court1 [and liability was established against him].2 But if he had already appeared in court1 [and liability had been established on the denial of which the son took a false oath])3 why then should the son not pay even the Fifth?4 — 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.5 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 bag6 that was deposited with others.7 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].
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:9 If one misappropriated leaven and Passover meanwhile came and went,10 he may say to the plaintiff, Here there is thine before thee.11 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 originally12 had some pecuniary value. So also in this case,13 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 also said: It has been stated that if an earthenware barrel29 had a hole which was filled up with lees, they would render it safe [and secure30 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].31 Raba thereupon asked: What would be the law where only half of the hole was blocked up?32 Said R. Yemar to R. Ashi: Is this not covered by our Mishnah? For we have learnt: 'If an earthenware barrel33 had a hole which was filled up with lees, they would render it safe [and secure34 while in a tent where a corpse of a human being was kept]. If it was corked up with vine shoots35 it would not do unless it was smeared with mortar.36 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.'37 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?38 — 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,39 whereas here40 half of the hole was blocked up with such a material as would hold.
Where he was summoned on the instigation of witnesses after he had already denied the claim with a false oath; in which case there is no liability of a Fifth, v. Mishnah 108b. Tosaf. a.l.
On the strength of impartial evidence.
The text contained in parenthesis, i.e. 'But … oath' is stated by Rashi a.l. to have been an unwarranted insertion on the part of unauthorised scribes, since according to the Mishnah infra 121a, the children are liable to make restitution where real possessions were left to them by their father; v. however Tosaf. a.l.
For the oath he himself took falsely.
As for the denial of such a liability no oath could be imposed; v. Shebu. VI, 5 and 37b.
So that while the son took the oath that the article was not with him, he meant to swear truly and could therefore not be made liable for perjury; cf. Shebu. 36b.
Since at the time of the robbery its value was not less than a perutah.
And thus rendered the leaven unfit for any use.
Since no tangible change took place in the misappropriated article, v. supra 96b.
I.e., at the time of the robbery.
And should accordingly not have to pay for it.
I.e., the whole of it.
In accordance with Lev. V, 23.
In the hands of the defendant.
Since the whole restoration was of an article worth less than a perutah.
V. p. 609, n. 10.
V. p. 609, n. 9.
V. p. 609. n. 11.
In accordance with Num. VI, 9 and 18.
Is this not generally so in all cases of shaving? The injunction has surely been performed, since at the beginning of shaving the minimum number of hairs was not lacking.
I.e., Rabina to R. Aha.
Before he started to shave the two hairs.
That was covered on all sides.
And thus not be subject to Num. XIX, 15.
V. p. 610, n. 11.
For the purpose of blocking up the hole well.
Hence the query of Raba should be answered in the negative.
Hence the smearing is essential.
I.e., in the query of Raba.
For which he should be subject to Lev. V, 21-25.
And if this is the case the perjurer should be subject only to Lev. V, 4-10.
In accordance with Lev. V, 21-25.
For which a thief is liable but not a bailee.
Which is a valid defence in the case of a borrower but not in that of a thief.
In the case he swore he was an unpaid bailee.
Why then has Rabbah made a statement to the contrary effect?
I.e., Rabbah to R. Amram.
Lit., 'said to him, here is thine.' In which case there is no denial of money.
And there is therefore a potential denial of money.
So interpreted by Rashi, but v. Malbim on Lev. V, 22, n. 374.
Referring to Lev. V, 1. On the question whether it refers to the law of liability or exemption v. the discussion that follows.
Cf. Sifra on Lev. V, 22.
And no perjury at all was committed.
And took nevertheless an oath to the contrary.
I.e., whether to that of liability or to that of exemption.
To deliver evidence on a pecuniary matter and he falsely denied any knowledge of it.
I.e. R. Eleazar b. Simeon who follows the view of his father, cf. supra 71b.
I.e., such as where the evidence in question would not directly have any bearing upon a pecuniary matter but might indirectly at a subsequent stage bring about a pecuniary liability; this is so in the case of one witness whose evidence is not sufficient to establish pecuniary liabilities as stated in Deut. XIX, 15, but whose testimony is accepted for the purpose of imposing an oath upon a defendant who, if unprepared to swear, would have to make full payment; v. Shebu. 40a and 41a.
And the law of Lev. V, 1 has to apply.
The law of Lev. V, 1 could therefore not apply in the case of one witness.
In accordance with the law applicable to robbers.
Sifra on Lev. XIX, 11.
The restitution he is obliged to make, ibid. 23.
I.e., even before having committed perjury; the fine thus being his becoming liable for all accidents.
In accordance with Lev. V, 21-24.
The Fifth and Guilt offering.
The penalty thus being his becoming liable for all accidents.
In which case Lev. V, 21-24 does not apply as gathered from Num. V, 7; v. infra 108b.
V. p. 614, n. 13.
The plaintiff will take the oath.
Dealt with in Lev. V, 2 and Shebu. IV.
That by mere denial of a deposit the depositor becomes subject to the law of robbery.
Even before having taken the false oath.
For the ruling of R. Shesheth applies only to a case where it was definitely proved that at the time of the denial the deposit was actually in the hands of the depositor.
B.M. 4a, 5b and Shebu. 40b.
Without, however, having taken an oath.
For since the denial was not confirmed by an oath it might have been made merely for the time being. i.e., to get rid of the plaintiff who pressed for immediate payment.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 

V. 

V. 

V. 

V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 

V.