Commentary for Bava Kamma 216:3

לאביי קשיא סיפא אמר לך אביי הכי קתני נשבע ולא רצה לשלם קודם השבועה אלא לאחר השבועה למי משלם לבעל הפקדון לרבא קשיא רישא אמר לך רבא הכי קתני שילם ולא רצה לעמוד בשבועתו אלא שילם למי משלם למי שהפקדון אצלו

through his confession to the bailee?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The problem is whether the bailee had an implied mandate to approach the thief or not, as a confession made not to the plaintiff or his authorised agent but to a third party uninterested in the matter is of no avail to exempt from the fine; cf. however the case of R. Gamaliel and his slave Tabi, supra p. 428. ');">³</span> — Said Raba: If the oath [taken by the bailee] was true, the thief would become exempt through his confession to the bailee,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in this case the trust in the bailee has not been impaired and the implied mandate not cancelled. ');">⁴</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 216:3. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.