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 104
1) WHAT MAKES A MESSENGER?
(a) (Mishnah): It is not enough to give it to his son or
(b) (Rav Chisda): Reuven made Levi a messenger (to take what
Shimon owes him) - he is considered a messenger (if
Shimon gives it to Levi, Shimon is exempt, even if Reuven
never gets it);
(c) (Rava): He is not considered a messenger.
1. Rav Chisda says, he is a messenger - this is why
Reuven bothered to appoint him in front of
(d) (Mishnah): David borrowed Moshe's cow; Moshe sent it with
his own son, slave or messenger, or with David's son,
slave or messenger, and it died on the way - David is
2. Rava says, he is not a messenger - Reuven merely
informs Shimon that Levi is trustworthy, if Shimon
wants to rely on him he may.
(e) Question: What is the case of (David's) messenger?
1. If he was not appointed in front of witnesses -
(Rashi - we do not know if he was a messenger, why
does the Mishnah call him a messenger? Tosfos - how
did Moshe know that he was a messenger, that he sent
the cow with him?)
(f) Answer: As Rav Chisda said (below) - the case of the
messenger is his housemate or hired help.
2. Rather, he was appointed in front of witnesses (and
still David is exempt - this refutes Rav Chisda)!
(g) (Mishnah): It is not enough to give it to his son or
(h) Question: What is the case of his messenger?
1. If he was not appointed in front of witnesses - we
do not know if he was a messenger!
(i) Answer (Rav Chisda): The case of the messenger is his
housemate or hired help.
2. Rather, he was appointed in front of witnesses (this
refutes Rav Chisda)!
(j) Question: But if he was not appointed in front of
witnesses, he would be a valid messenger?
1. If so, why does the end of the Mishnah say it
suffices to give it to a messenger of Beis Din -
rather, it should say, a messenger that Shimon (the
owner of the stolen object) appointed in front of
witnesses (to distinguish the 2 cases of Shimon's
(k) Answer: The Mishnah prefers to speak of a messenger of
Beis Din, for this always suffices (whether Reuven (the
thief) or Shimon appointed him) - Shimon's messenger only
works sometimes (if appointed in front of witnesses);
1. The Mishnah comes to argue on R. Shimon ben Elazar.
(l) (R. Yochanan and R. Elazar): A messenger made in front of
witnesses is considered a messenger.
2. (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar): The thief is
exempt in the following cases:
i. He gave the stolen object to a messenger of
Beis Din who was appointed by the owner;
ii. The thief appointed a messenger of Beis Din,
and a messenger of the owner took the stolen
object from this messenger.
(m) Question: But the Mishnah does not allow giving it to
Levi, the messenger of Shimon (the owner; presumably,
Levi was appointed in front of witnesses)!
(n) Answer #1: Shimon did not appoint Levi as a messenger -
he merely told him to appear in front of Reuven, in case
Reuven wants to send it with him.
(o) Answer #2: As Rav Chisda said - Levi (was not appointed,
he) is Shimon's housemate or hired help.
2) PROOF OF AUTHORIZATION
(a) (Rav Yehudah): Reuven had money deposited by Shimon; he
sent Levi with a letter saying to send it with Levi. Even
though Reuven drew his personal identifying sign
underneath, and witnesses signed that this is his sign,
Shimon should not rely on it.
3) THE ADDED FIFTH
(b) (R. Yochanan): If witnesses signed on it, he may send it.
(c) Question: According to Shmuel, how can Reuven retrieve
his money (without going himself)?
(d) Answer: As in the case of R. Aba.
1. R. Aba asked Rav Safra to bring him money which Rav
Yosef bar Chama owed to him.
(e) A similar case occurred with Rav Papa. He was owed 12,000
Zuz in Bei Chuzai. He gave them to Rav Shmuel bar Aba,
Agav the corner of his house, who then brought him the
2. Rava (Rav Yosef's son): Did R. Aba write 'When you
give it to Rav Safra, it is as if I received it'?
3. Rav Safra: No.
4. Rava: Return and have him write that.
5. Retraction (Rava): Even if he writes that, we do not
rely on it - if R. Aba would die (after writing it
and before you take the money), the money would pass
to his heirs, and they did not authorize you!
6. Rav Safra: So how can I bring the money to him?
7. Rava: He should give (ownership of) the money to you
Agav (by way of also giving you) the corner of his
house (i.e. a small piece of land); when we give you
the money, you will write a receipt.
(a) (Mishnah): If he paid the principle (but not the added
fifth, he need not travel to return it).
(b) Inference: Since the Mishnah must teach that he need not
travel to return it, it must be that the added fifth is
considered a proper debt, and if Shimon dies, Reuven must
pay it to his heirs.
(c) Support #1 (Mishnah): If Reuven paid the principle, and
(falsely) swore that he also paid the added fifth, he
must pay (the added fifth and) an additional fifth of the
added fifth. (This also shows that it is as a proper
(d) Support #2 (Beraisa #1): Levi stole from Yehudah, swore
falsely, and died - Levi's heirs pay the principle and
the added fifth, they do not bring an Asham.
(e) Question: Do heirs really pay the added fifth?
1. Contradiction (Beraisa #2): One might have thought,
the only exemption (for a son from paying an added
fifth on what his father stole) is when neither the
son nor father swore;
(f) Answer (Rav Nachman): Beraisa #1 is when the father later
admitted, Beraisa #2 is when (the father or son) never
i. Question: How do we know that even if the
father or son swore falsely, the son is exempt?
ii. Answer: "That he stole and oppressed" - the son
did not steal or oppress.
(g) Question: If they never admitted, why does the son pay
1. Suggestion: Perhaps he does not pay principle!
(h) Answer: When Rav Nachman said that Beraisa #2 is when
(he) never admitted - he meant, the father never
admitted, but the son did.
2. Rejection #1: Since the Beraisa must teach that he
is exempt from the added fifth, we infer that he
3. Rejection #2 (Beraisa #3): One might have thought,
the only time a son pays the principle that his
father stole is when both of them swore falsely;
i. Question: How do we know that if only 1 of
them, or even neither swore falsely, the son
4. Question (Rabah bar Rav Huna): Does the Beraisa end
'Yaish Talmud', or 'Yishtalmo' (he will pay it - we
know from reason, not from a verse)?
ii. Answer: "Theft, oppression, lost object,
deposit" - 'Yaish Talmud' (the verses teach
5. Answer (Rav Huna): 'Yaish Talmud'.
(i) Question: The son should be obligated to pay the added
fifth for his own false oath!
(j) Answer #1: The case is, the stolen object is not around
(so the son swore on money he was not obligated to pay).
1. Question: If so, why does he pay principle?
(k) Answer #2 (Rava): The case is, the father had deposited
the stolen object by others;
2. [Version #1 (Our text, Tosfos) Answer: The case is,
the son inherited land.
3. Question: Even if he inherited land - the stolen
object is as an oral loan, which cannot be collected
from heirs or buyers!
4. Answer: The case is, the father was taken to Beis
Din (and was obligated to pay through testimony of
witnesses - this makes it as a loan on which a
document was written).]
5. [Version #2 (Rashi) Answer: The case is, the son
inherited land (so he must return the stolen object
on account of the honor of his father).]
6. Question: If so, the son should also pay the added
fifth (for his own false oath)!
7. Answer (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): The added
fifth is not paid for denial of money when there is
a lien on land to pay it.]
1. The son pays the principle, for the stolen object is
2. He does not pay the added fifth, for the son swore
truthfully - he did not know where it was.