בחייו ובמותו אם מת לא יירשנו ויחזיר לבניו או לאחיו ואם אין לו לוה ובעלי חוב באים ונפרעים

The mishna continues: If the father stated in his vow that his son may not derive benefit from his property in his life and in his death, then even if the father then dies the son does not inherit from him, as the prohibition is still in effect. And instead of taking his inheritance, he returns his portion in the estate to his sons or to his brothers. And if he does not have sufficient funds to subsist without his inheritance, he borrows money in the amount of the value of his share in the inheritance and the creditors come and are repaid from his share.

גמ׳ אמר רב יוסף אפילו לארנקי של צדקה אמר רב פפא וצריך שיאמר זה גזל אבי

GEMARA: With regard to the halakha written in the mishna that one who robs his father pays the principal and the additional one-fifth payment to the father’s heirs, Rav Yosef says: One may even put this money in a charity purse if he so chooses. Rav Pappa says: And when giving the money he must say: This is what was robbed from my father.

אמאי נמחליה לנפשיה מי לא תנן מחל לו על הקרן ולא מחל לו על החומש אלמא בר מחילה הוא

§ The Gemara questions the mishna’s ruling that one who robs his father must return the stolen item to others even if he is the sole heir. Why must he do this? Let him forgive the debt to him self; as the heir, to whom payment is due, he should be able to forgive it. Didn’t we learn in a mishna (103a) that in the case of a robber who took a false oath claiming to be innocent and later admitted his liability: If the owner forgave him concerning the principal, but did not forgive him concerning the additional one-fifth payment, he need not pursue him to repay the remaining debt. Apparently, even the principal is subject to forgiveness, so why doesn’t he forgive the obligation to him self?

אמר רבי יוחנן לא קשיא הא רבי יוסי הגלילי הא רבי עקיבא

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is not difficult. That mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says that this obligation can be forgiven, while this mishna, ruling that a son who robbed his father and is his sole heir cannot forgive the obligation to him self, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who holds that this obligation cannot be forgiven.

דתניא ואם אין לאיש גאל להשיב האשם וכי יש אדם בישראל שאין לו גואלים אלא בגזל הגר הכתוב מדבר

Rabbi Yoḥanan explains: As it is taught in a baraita ( Tosefta 10: 16) that the verse states with regard to one who steals from one who then died:“ But if the man has no kinsman to whom restitution may be made for the guilt, the restitution for guilt that is made shall be the Lord’s, even the priest’s” (Numbers 5:8). The baraita asks: But is there any Jewish person who has no kinsmen? Since every Jew descends from Jacob our forefather, all Jews have relatives to inherit from them. Rather, it must be that the verse is speaking of robbery of a convert who never married or had children as a Jew, and in any case is no longer legally related to his gentile family; he has no heirs. In this situation the Torah instructs one who robbed from a now-deceased convert to return the stolen item to a priest.

הרי שגזל הגר ונשבע לו ושמע שמת הגר והיה מעלה כספו ואשמו לירושלים ופגע באותו הגר וזקפו עליו במלוה ומת זכה הלה במה שבידו דברי רבי יוסי הגלילי רבי עקיבא אומר אין לו תקנה עד שיוציא גזילו מתחת ידו

The baraita continues: In the case of one who robbed a convert and took a false oath to him say ing that he did not rob him, and then heard that the convert died; and he was bringing his money, for the principal and the additional one-fifth payment, and his guilt-offering up to Jerusalem to pay his debt to the priests and sacrifice his offering, and he encountered that same convert, who in fact had not died; and, instead of having the robber pay the money right away the convert established it as a loan for the robber, and then the convert died, leaving his property ownerless, as he had no heirs; this robber acquires all that is in his possession, as it is now a loan, not money to pay back the theft; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Rabbi Akiva says: The robber has no remedy until he will remove his stolen item from his possession.

לרבי יוסי הגלילי לא שנא לנפשיה לא שנא לאחרים מצי מחיל ולרבי עקיבא לא שנא לאחרים ולא שנא לנפשיה לא מצי מחיל

Rabbi Yoḥanan explains their respective opinions. According to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, there is no difference if the one to whom payment is due forgives the return of a stolen item to him self, such as in this case of a convert who died or in the case of the mishna where a son robbed his father who then died, and there is no difference if he forgives the return of a stolen item to others. In either case, he can forgive payment. And according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, there is no difference if the one to whom payment is due forgives the return of a stolen item to others and there is no difference if he forgives the return of a stolen item to him self. In either case, he cannot forgive payment.

ולרבי יוסי הוא הדין דאפילו לא זקפו במלוה והאי דקתני זקפו עליו במלוה להודיעך כחו דרבי עקיבא דאפילו זקפן עליו במלוה אין לו תקנה עד שיוציא גזילה מתחת ידו

Rabbi Yoḥanan continues his analysis: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, the same is true, i. e., the halakha would also be, that no liability would remain in the case of the convert even had he not established the robbery debt as a loan, as the robber could forgive the obligation to him self once the convert died. And the fact that the baraita teaches its halakha in a case where he established it as a loan for the robber is to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabbi Akiva: That even if he established it as a loan for him, in which case it could be considered as though the robber had returned the stolen item and now has a standard loan debt, nevertheless, the robber has no remedy until he will remove his stolen item from his possession, so as to not benefit from his act of robbery.

מתקיף לה רב ששת אי הכי לרבי יוסי הגלילי לשמעינן לנפשיה וכל שכן לאחרים לרבי עקיבא לשמעינן לאחרים דלא מצי מחיל וכל שכן לנפשיה דלא מצי מחיל

Rav Sheshet objects to this interpretation of the baraita: If so, then according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, let the mishna on 103a, which indicates that one can forgive the principal payment of a robbery, teach us instead that the robbery victim can forgive the obligation to him self, and it would be understood that all the more so one can forgive the obligation to others. And according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, which Rabbi Yoḥanan explains to be the opinion stated in the mishna here, let it teach us that one cannot forgive the obligation to others, and it would be understood all the more so with regard to the robber, that he cannot forgive the obligation to him self.

אלא אמר רב ששת הא והא רבי יוסי הגלילי כי קאמר רבי יוסי הגלילי דמצי מחיל לאחרים אבל לנפשיה לא מצי מחיל אלא אמאי זכה הלה במה שבידו משום דזקפן עליו במלוה

Rather, Rav Sheshet said: That mishna and this mishna are both in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. When Rabbi Yosei HaGelili is say ing that one can forgive the return of a stolen item, he meant specifically forgiving the obligation to others, but he cannot forgive the obligation to him self. The Gemara asks: But if that is the halakha, why did this one who robbed a convert who subsequently died acquire all that is in his possession? Because the convert established it as a loan for him, and henceforth it is no longer considered stolen property, but a standard loan debt.

רבא אמר הא והא רבי עקיבא כי אמר רבי עקיבא דלא מצי מחיל לנפשיה אבל לאחרים מצי מחיל

The Gemara offers a different explanation. Rava said: That mishna and this mishna are both in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. When Rabbi Akiva says that he cannot forgive the return of a stolen item he meant specifically forgiving the obligation to him self, as in the case of the convert, but he can forgive the obligation to others.