Today's daf is dedicated in memory of all the soldiers who were killed this week and for a refuah shleima to all those injured.  Two answers are given to resolve the contradiction between the inference from our Mishna and a braita about whether or not heirs need to pay the chomesh. Since the Mishna establishes that the obligation to return the item directly to its owner only applies when the item owed is more than a pruta, Rava explains the law in a case where the price drops in value, but raises a question in a case where the value of the items stolen was a pruta and but half were already returned and what is left is no longer a pruta. Two other similar-type questions are brought that Rava asked about the shaving of a nazir and laws of impurity. Rava also asks about chametz that was stolen before Pesach and at the time the robber swore falsely, it was already after Pesach and the item no longer had value. Do the laws of swearing falsely for theft apply since the chametz has potential value as it can cause a monetary obligation or do they not apply since the chametz now has no inherent value, as it is forbidden to benefit from? Raba thought there was an obvious answer - one is obligated because of its potential value as he proves from a different case. Rav Amram questions his answer from a braita and Raba answers it by distinguishing between the chametz case and the case in the braita. Some clarifications are made regarding some of the cases mentioned in the braita quoted by Rav Amram. Ben Azai talks about three types of false claims one can swear about in denying one knows testimony about a lost item. Rabbi Chanina and Shmuel understand this source differently. The root of their debate is connected to the ideas discussed previously about a claim that could lead to a potential financial loss and whether or not laws of false oath denying monetary claims apply to those cases as well. Rav Sheshet holds that once one denies a claim regarding an item he/she was watching, he/she is considered a robber and is obligated to pay even for accidental damages, even if they didn't take an oath denying the claim. Rav Sheshet brings a source to prove his claim, but it is rejected. Rami bar Chama raises a contradiction to Rav Sheshet's opinion from a braita, but it is resolved.