Commentary for Bava Kamma 126:17

אמר לך הקישא הוא ואין משיבין על הקישא

— It may be replied that one is to exclude the case of a false allegation of loss [from entailing double payment]. Now on the supposition<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the second Baraitha. ');">²²</span> that one verse deals with a thief and the other with [a bailee falsely] alleging theft, in which case there will be no superfluous verse [in the text] whence can we derive the exclusion of a false allegation of loss [from entailing double payment]? — From [the definite article; as instead of] 'thief' [it is written] 'the thief'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus pointing out that the liability for double payment is only where it was the plea of theft that was proved to have been false. ');">²⁷</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 126:17. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.