Commentary for Bava Kamma 211:19

אמר ליה רב אחא סבא לרב אשי רב המנונא הכי קא קשיא ליה

advanced a plea of theft regarding a deposit and confirmed it by an oath but subsequently admitted [his perjury], and witnesses came forward [and testified to the same effect], if he confessed before the appearance of the witnesses, he has to pay the Principal together with a Fifth and a trespass offering; but if he confessed after the appearance of the witnesses he has to repay double and bring a trespass offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shebu. 37b; supra 65a. ');">³³</span> Now, here it could not be said that it was outside the Court of Law, or that it was done in anticipation [of the action of the Court], since the liability of double payment<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 618, n. 1. ');">³⁴</span> is mentioned here!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is this not in contradiction to the view of Rab? ');">³⁵</span> — Raba therefore said: To all cases of confession,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of perjury regarding a claim of pecuniary value. ');">³⁶</span> no matter whether he pleaded in defence loss or theft, Rab did not mean his statement to apply, for it is definitely written: <i>Then they shall confess</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. V, 7. ');">³⁷</span> implying [that in all cases] the perjurer would have to pay the Principal and the Fifth, [and so also in the case] where he pleaded theft<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Confirming it by a false oath. ');">³⁸</span> and witnesses came forward [and proved otherwise], Rab similarly did not mean his statement to apply, for [it is in this case that] the liability for double payment [is laid down in Scripture];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 6-8 as interpreted supra p. 368. ');">³⁹</span> the statement made by Rab applies only to the case where, e.g., he pleaded in defence loss<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the bailee could never become liable for double payment. ');">⁴⁰</span> and after confirming it by an oath he did not admit his perjury but witnesses appeared [and proved it].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It was in such a case that Rab laid down the ruling that once the oath had been administered the claim could no more be put forward again. ');">⁴¹</span> R. Gamda went and repeated this explanation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of Raba. ');">⁴²</span> in the presence of R. Ashi who said to him: Seeing that R. Hamnuna was a disciple of Rab<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Sanh. 17b; v. also supra 74a, n. 10. ');">⁴³</span> and surely knew very well that Rab meant his statement to apply also to the case of confession,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of perjury. ');">⁴⁴</span> since otherwise he would not have raised an objection from a case of confession, how then can you say that Rab did not mean his statement to apply to a case of confession?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of perjury. ');">⁴⁴</span> — Said R. Aha the Elder to R. Ashi: R. Hamnuna's difficulty may have been this:

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 211:19. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.