Bava Kamma 105: Robbers, Witnesses, Bailees and False Oaths

We continue to learn from the rabbis' discussions about robbers who take false oaths but admit to the primary feature of a claim.

The Gemara wonders if our last Mishna demonstrated concern about a stolen item that is worth less than one peruta appreciating in value.  If the item gains in worth until it is more than one peruta, that could change whether or not the victim has to find the robber him/herself.  In their discussion, they refer to Rava who wonders whether an item worth less than one peruta can in fact be stolen.  This dilemma is compared with another of Rava's dilemmas: whether or not a nazarite can shave his two remaining hairs one hair at a time.  If one of the hairs falls out, has he fulfilled his obligation of shaving his head?  Rava's resolution: if there is no hair, there is no mitzvah of shaving.  The rabbis then must decide whether one is a nazarite ab initio.

The Gemara continues to explore Rava's dilemmas.  There is the dilemma about a punctured barrel that is sealed by sediment.  Is the barrel subject to ritual impurity, like it would be if it the hole was plugged by a vine?  Clay must be smeared from the sides of the hole toward its centre to protect against ritual impurity.  The clay ensures that the seal will stay in place.    

Another dilemma: if one robs another of matzo and Peach ends, can one divide benefit from the matzah?  Does the robber say, "That which is yours is before you"?  Is it fair to return a stolen item that has lost its value completely?  Rava adds to the dilemma: what if the robber took a false oath concerning the robbery?  Rabba thinks about this dilemma regarding a stolen ox.  When a robber denies a claim of monetary matter, he must bring the additional one-fifth payment and make a guilt offering.  

In order to understand the conflicting baraitot and opinions, the rabbis note that their cases were referring to more specific circumstances that would explain the seeming contradictions.

The Gemara then considers false oaths taken by witnesses.  Ben Azzai says that there are three possible false oaths.  These suggest that it is possible that the witness took an oath in truth:

• the witness recognized the lost time but not its finder
• the witness recognized the finder but not the lost item
• the witness did not recognize either the finder nor the lost item

An item that causes financial loss is considered to have monetary value.

The rabbis quote a number of sources that suggest the transgressions that occur when a bailee falsely denies a claim concerning a deposit.  The bailee is considered to be a robber in this circumstance.  Our daf ends with descriptions of situations that might lead a bailee to make such a decision.  The rabbis walk us through the potential consequences of those actions.