Commentary for Bava Kamma 215:7

בעי רבינא חומש וכפילא בתרי גברי מאי היכי דמי כגון שמסר שורו לשני בני אדם וטענו בו טענת גנב חד נשבע והודה וחד נשבע ובאו עדים מאי

whereas where he made a confession after [the evidence was given by] the witnesses, it would not be so. But if you assume that it is the oath involving liability of double payment that exempts from the Fifth, why then [in this case] even where he made confession after the evidence had already been given by the witnesses should the liability for the Fifth not be involved? Since the oath here was not instrumental in imposing the liability for double payment why should it not involve the liability for the Fifth? This would seem conclusively to prove that a pecuniary value for which there is liability to make double payment exempts from the Fifth, would it not? — This could indeed be proved from it.

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 215:7. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.