Commentary for Bava Kamma 213:5

תני רמי בר חמא ארבעה שומרין

to admit the whole claim; the reason that he denied a part was because he considered: Were I to admit [now] the whole liability, he will soon demand the whole claim from me; I should therefore [better] at least for time being get rid of him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At least so far as a part of the claim is concerned. ');">¹³</span> and as soon as I have the money will pay him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the whole of the claim. ');">¹⁴</span> It was on account of this that the Divine Law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 7-8. ');">¹⁵</span> imposed an oath upon him so that he should have to admit the whole of the claim.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As he would surely be loth to commit perjury. ');">¹⁶</span> Now, it is only in the case of a loan that such reasoning could apply.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the creditor was a previous benefactor of his. ');">¹⁷</span> whereas regarding a deposit the bailee would surely brazen it out [against the depositor].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in this case the bailee was generally the benefactor and not necessarily the depositor, so that the whole psychological argumentation of Rabbah fails; [and an oath is thus to be imposed even where there is a total denial, which is contrary to the view reported by R. Hiyya b. Abba in the name of R. Johanan.] ');">¹⁸</span> Rami b. Mama learnt: The four bailees

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 213:5. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.