Commentary for Bava Kamma 209:3

חוץ מפחות שוה פרוטה בקרן כו': אמר רב פפא לא שנו אלא שאין גזילה קיימת אבל גזילה קיימת צריך לילך אחריו חיישינן שמא תייקר

But Raba said [that the misappropriated article was still extant in this case as the reason that the son need not pay a Fifth for his own false oath is because] we were dealing here with a case where [the misappropriated article was kept in] his father's bag<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. [G], bisaccium. ');">⁶</span> that was deposited with others.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that while the son took the oath that the article was not with him, he meant to swear truly and could therefore not be made liable for perjury; cf. Shebu. 36b. ');">⁷</span> The principal therefore must be paid since it was subsequently discovered to be in existence, whereas the Fifth has not to be paid since when the son took the oath he meant to swear truly, as at that time he did not know [that there was a misappropriated article in the estate].

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 209:3. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.