Study Bava Kamma folio 105A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
The reference here is to a case in which the father had already stood trial and was obligated to pay. In such a case, the debt is considered like a loan with a promissory note, which a creditor may collect from the debtor’s heirs. The Talmud rejects this: If it is a case in which the father had alre
Rava said a different explanation: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the stolen item is still extant, yet the heir is exempt because his father’s sack [disakaya] containing the stolen item was deposited in the possession of others. Accordingly, the heir pays the princ
§ The Mishnah teaches that if the robbery victim forgave the robber concerning both payments, excepting less than the value of one peruta of the principal, he need not pursue him in order to return the remaining debt. Rav Pappa says: They taught that the robber is not obligated to pursue the robber
There are those who say that Rav Pappa said: The halakha is not different when the stolen item is extant, and it is not different when the stolen item is not extant. In either case he does not need to pursue him because we are not concerned that perhaps it will appreciate in value.
The Talmud cites another ruling with regard to a stolen item worth less than one peruta. Rava says: If one robbed another of 3 bundles of goods that were worth 3 perutot in total, and they depreciated in value and their value stood at two perutot, even if he returned two bundles to the robbery vict