Commentary for Bava Kamma 126:19

וכי תימא ליתי בק"ו מטוען טענת גנב דיו לבא מן הדין להיות כנדון מה להלן בשבועה אף כאן בשבועה

that R. Johanan said that he who falsely alleges theft in the case of a deposit would have to make double payment, and so also if he slaughtered or sold it he would have to make fourfold or five-fold payment. But 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, and that [the fact that instead of] 'thief', '<i>the thief'</i> [is written] has been used to exclude a false allegation of loss [from entailing double payment], whence could be derived the view of R. Hiyya b. Abba?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 364. ');">²⁸</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 126:19. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.