Commentary for Bava Kamma 114:9

ה"ד כגון דקא טעין טענת לסטים מזויין וקתני ואח"כ נמצא הגנב משלם תשלומי כפל לשוכר ש"מ לסטים מזויין גנב הוא

Now, if you assume that an armed malefactor is considered a thief why could there be no refutation [of this <i>a fortiori</i>]? It could surely be refuted [thus]: Why [is liability attached] to Paid Bailee if not because he might have to pay double payment where he puts forward the plea [that] an armed malefactor<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 332, n. 5. ');">⁵</span> [took the articles in his charge]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas in the case of Borrower there could never be an occasion for double payment, as any plea of theft whether by an armed malefactor or by an ordinary thief would involve the payment of the principal and would thus be an admission of liability and not a defence at all. ');">¹⁴</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 114:9. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.