Bava Kamma 103: Partial Payments; False Oaths and Multiple Payments

Our daf begins with a clarification about timing.  Examples are provided regarding purchasing a field in the name of another person.  The rabbis seem to agree that witnesses must hear the full condition, including all future plans that might affect ownership (ex. but I intended to write another document later including someone else's name!) at the time of the purchase.  If not, the seller might be compelled to sell the field a second time.

An example is provided regarding the sale of flax.  Rav Kahana brought his own situation to Rav - he had given money to a salesperson for flax, and the sale was arranged but the flax was not picked up immediately.  In the intervening time, the flax rose in value and was sold at a higher price, all of the money intended to be given to Rav Kahana.  But doesn't this appear as if it is interest?  It was determined that it is permitted to make arrangements for produce, but not for money.  Any increase in payment would appear to be interest, which is not permitted.

A new Mishna teaches that a person who steals something that is worth at least one pert and takes a false oath that he is innocent - followed by an admission of guilt, he must bring the money to the victim even if he is far away in Medea.  The payment will be the principal value pule an additional one-fifth payment.   The payment must be given directly to the victim and not his son nor his agent.  If the victim dies, the payment is returned to his heirs.  If the principal or the one-fifth payment is not paid, the robber is not pursued as long as he is forgiven that restitution by the victim.  If the victim does not forgive any part of the payment, he should pursue the robber to repay his debt.  If the robber falsely swears that he has paid that missing part of the payment, the missing payment is now considered his new principal debt, and he owes that amount plus one-fifth.  This can continue until the debt is worth less than one peruta.  This principal holds for any case where one lies about a debt, as Leviticus (5:21-24) tells us that the principle plus one-fifth plus a guilt offering is owed.

The Gemara questions whether or not an original false oath is required and whether this Mishna reflects the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon or Rabbi Akiva.  Rabbi Tarfon teaches that a robber can leave the stolen item between himself and the victim and then withdraw.   Rabbi Akiva is more strict, and requires that the robber pay back up to five sellers who say that the item had been stolen from them, regardless of a false oath of innocence.  These two acts of restitution are mutually exclusive - we can't place an item in between five possible victims and the robber when each victim is meant to receive full payment.  To be clear, this does mean that if a robber admits that he stole 100 dinars from one of two people and no-one knows who the victim was, the robber is to pay 100 dinars to each of the two possible victims.

We end our daf with questions about pious men who took false oaths of innocence.  This line of questioning is different, as it clearly demonstrates empathy for the plight of a person - even a rabbi - who sins but then takes responsibility and changes his deportment.