אין משלחין מעות בדיוקני ואפילו עדים חתומים עליה ורבי יוחנן אמר אם עדים חתומים עליה משלחין One who owes a debt may not send money with another to the creditor on the basis of a figure [deyokani] or sign used in place of a signature that is associated with the creditor. The possession of this sign on the part of the other is not sufficient proof that he has been appointed as an agent. And this is the halakha even if witnesses verifying that this is the creditor’s sign are signed on it. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If there are witnesses signed on it, one may send the money with the other.
אמרי לשמואל מאי תקנתא כי הא דרבי אבא הוי מסיק זוזי בדרב יוסף בר חמא א"ל לרב ספרא בהדי דאתית אייתינהו ניהלי כי אזל להתם אמר ליה רבא בריה מי כתב לך התקבלתי א"ל לא אי הכי זיל ברישא ויכתוב לך התקבלתי The Sages say: According to Shmuel, what is the rectification, i.e., what recourse is available to one who wishes to collect a debt without traveling to the debtor’s location? The Gemara answers: One may act like that course of action of Rabbi Abba, who was owed money by Rav Yosef bar Ḥama. Rabbi Abba said to Rav Safra: When you come back from Rabbi Yosef bar Ḥama’s locale, bring my money to me. When Rav Safra went there, Rava, Rav Yosef bar Ḥama’s son, said to him: Did Rabbi Abba write you a document stating: I have received payment, so that my father will have proof that he has absolved himself of the debt? Rav Safra said to him: No. Rava responded: If so, first go to him and let him write you a document stating: I have received payment, and then my father will pay you.
לסוף אמר ליה אי כתב לך נמי התקבלתי לאו כלום הוא דלמא אדאתית שכיב רבי אבא ונפלו זוזי קמי יתמי והתקבלתי דרבי אבא לאו כלום הוא א"ל ואלא מאי תקנתא זיל נקנינהו לך אגב ארעא ותא את כתוב לן התקבלתי Ultimately, Rava said to him: Even if he writes you a document stating: I have received payment, it is nothing, since perhaps by the time you arrive back here, Rabbi Abba will have died and the money will fall before his orphans as an inheritance, and the document stating: I have received payment, that was written by Rabbi Abba, will be nothing, as the debt is no longer owed to him, but rather, to his heirs. Rav Safra said to him: Rather, what is the rectification? Rava replied: Go, and Rabbi Abba will transfer to you the rights to the money owed to him by means of acquisition of land from him, and then you should come and write for us a document stating: I have received payment. Then, we will pay you.
כי הא דרב פפא הוה מסיק תריסר אלפי זוזי בי חוזאי אקנינהו ניהליה לרב שמואל בר אבא אגב אסיפא דביתיה כי אתא נפק לאפיה עד תואך: The Gemara notes: And this is like that course of action of Rav Pappa, who was owed twelve thousand dinars by a resident of Bei Ḥozai, and he transferred his claim to the money to Rav Shmuel bar Abba by means of the acquisition of the threshold of his house. When Rav Shmuel bar Abba came from Bei Ḥozai with the money in hand, Rav Pappa went out as far as Tavakh toward him in his excitement to receive the money.
נתן לו את הקרן וכו': אלמא חומש ממונא הוא ואם מיית משלמי ליה יורשין § The mishna teaches that if the robber gave the robbery victim the principal value of the stolen item, but did not give him the additional one-fifth payment required of a robber, he is not required to pursue the robbery victim in order to return the additional one-fifth payment. The Gemara comments: Apparently, the additional one-fifth payment is considered monetary restitution rather than a fine. And accordingly, if the robber died, the heirs of the robber must pay it to the robbery victim.
ותנן נמי נתן את הקרן ונשבע על החומש הרי מוסיף חומש על חומש אלמא חומשא ממונא הוא And we also learned in the mishna that if the robber gave the robbery victim the principal and takes a false oath to him concerning the additional one-fifth payment, asserting that he had already paid it, the robber adds an additional one-fifth payment apart from the additional one-fifth payment about which he had taken a false oath. Apparently, the additional one-fifth payment is monetary restitution, as one is obligated to pay an additional one-fifth for taking a false oath only with regard to monetary restitution, not with regard to fines.
ותניא נמי הכי הגוזל את חבירו ונשבע לו ומת יורשין משלמים קרן וחומש ופטורין מן האשם And this is also taught in a baraita: With regard to one who robs another and takes a false oath to him that he did not rob him, and then dies, his heirs pay the principal and additional one-fifth payments to the robbery victim, but are exempt from the obligation to bring the guilt-offering.
ויורשין בני שלומי חומשא דאבוהון הוו (אלמא חומש ממונא הוא ובעי שלומי יורשין) ורמינהו עדיין אני אומר אימתי אינו משלם חומש על גזל אביו בזמן שלא נשבע לא הוא ולא אביו The Gemara asks: But are heirs obligated to pay the additional one-fifth payment of their father, indicating that apparently the additional one-fifth payment is monetary restitution, and therefore the heirs must pay it? But one could raise a contradiction from a baraita. After having stated that one is required to add the additional one-fifth payment only for a robbery he commits himself, and not for a robbery committed by his father, the baraita states: I would still say that when does an heir not pay the additional one-fifth payment for his father’s robbery? It is only when neither he nor his father took a false oath.
הוא ולא אביו אביו ולא הוא הוא ואביו מנין ת"ל (ויקרא ה, כג) אשר גזל ואשר עשק והוא לא גזל ולא עשק But if he took a false oath, but not his father; or if his father took a false oath, but not he; or if he and his father both took false oaths; from where is the heir’s exemption derived? The verse states: “He shall restore the item that he robbed,” and “the item that he has acquired through exploitation” (Leviticus 5:23), and in this case the heir did not rob and did not exploit. Since the verse states the obligation to pay the additional one-fifth payment when discussing one who robbed or exploited another, and the heir has done neither, he is exempt from payment. This baraita states that heirs are not obligated to pay the additional one-fifth payment.
אמר רב נחמן לא קשיא כאן שהודה כאן שלא הודה The Gemara answers: Rav Naḥman said that it is not difficult. Here, in the mishna and the first baraita, they discuss a case where the robber admitted his obligation and therefore was required to pay the additional one-fifth payment, and this obligation is transferred to his heir; there, in the latter baraita, it discusses a case where he did not admit his obligation and was never required to pay the additional one-fifth payment.
אי לא הודה קרן נמי לא משלם וכי תימא הכי נמי דלא משלם והא מדקא מהדר אחומש למימרא דקרן משלם The Gemara rejects this answer: If the latter baraita discusses a case where he did not admit his obligation, then the halakha would be that the heir would not pay even the principal, as the obligation is not known by anyone. And if you would say that indeed it is so that he does not pay the principal, but isn’t it understood from the fact that the tanna searches for a source to teach the heir’s exemption from only the additional one-fifth payment, that it means to say that he does pay the principal.
ועוד תניא ועדיין אני אומר אימתי הוא משלם קרן על גזל אביו בזמן שנשבע הוא ואביו אביו ולא הוא הוא ולא אביו לא הוא ולא אביו מנין ת"ל גזילה ועושק אבידה ופקדון יש תלמוד The Gemara also proves that the heir must pay the principal from the continuation of the same baraita. And further, it is taught in that baraita: And I would still say: When does the heir pay the principal for his father’s robbery? It is only when he and his father both took false oaths. But if his father took a false oath, and not he; or if he took a false oath, but not his father; or if neither he nor his father took false oaths; from where is the heir’s obligation to pay the principal derived? The verse states the following terms: “Robbery,” and “exploitation,” “lost item,” and “deposit” (Leviticus 5:23); and there is a derivation [yesh talmud] here to derive that the heir is obligated to pay the principal in all of these cases.
ויתיב רב הונא וקאמר להא שמעתא א"ל רבה בריה יש תלמוד קאמר מר או ישתלמו קאמר מר א"ל יש תלמוד קאמינא ומריבויא דקראי אמרי The Gemara clarifies: And Rav Huna sat and stated this halakha, and Rabba, his son, said to him: Was the Master saying that there is a derivation [yesh talmud], or was the Master saying that they will be paid [yishtalmu]? Rav Huna said to him: I am saying: There is a derivation, and it is from the additional expressions in the verses that I say it can be derived. It is apparent that an heir is obligated to pay the principal, and this refutes Rav Naḥman’s attempted resolution.
אלא מאי לא הודה לא הודה אביו והודה בנו Rather, what did Rav Naḥman mean when he suggested that the second baraita is referring to a case where he did not admit his obligation and exempts his heir from paying the additional one-fifth but obligates him to pay the principal? The baraita is referring to a case where the father did not admit, but his son did admit, and therefore he is obligated to pay the principal.
ונחייב בנו חומש אשבועה דידיה אמרי בשאין גזילה קיימת אי בשאין גזילה קיימת אפילו קרן נמי לא משלם לא צריכא דאיכא אחריות The Gemara asks: And let his son be liable to pay the additional one-fifth payment for his own false oath. The Sages say: In the case of the baraita, it is where the stolen item is no longer extant. Although the false oath was taken, it is not the type of obligation for which one must pay an additional one-fifth payment. The Gemara asks: If in the case of the baraita it is where the stolen item is no longer extant, the halakha should be that the heir does not pay even the principal, as the halakha is that while heirs must return an item stolen by their father, they are not obligated to compensate the owner if the item is no longer extant. The Gemara answers: No, the ruling is necessary in a case where there is guaranteed property, i.e., land, which the heirs inherited from the robber. Heirs are obligated to compensate the owner of a stolen item with inherited land, even if the stolen item itself is no longer extant.
וכי איכא אחריות נכסים מאי הוי מלוה על פה היא ומלוה על פה אינו גובה לא מן היורשין ולא מן הלקוחות The Gemara asks: And even when there is guaranteed property, i.e., land, what of it? After all, such a debt is legally considered a loan by oral agreement, and the creditor of a loan by oral agreement cannot collect from the heirs of the debtor, nor can he collect from those who purchased land from the debtor.
אמרי The Sages say in response: