Commentary for Bava Kamma 216:11

אמר לך רבא הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שקדם ונשבע והא רצה עושה עמו דין רצה נשבע קאמר הכי קאמר רצה שומר חנם עומד בשבועתו רצה עושה עמו דין

he would have to go to law with the thief and not take an oath. May we say that Raba differs from the view of R. Huna b. Abin, for R. Huna b. Abin sent word that where the deposit was stolen by violence and the thief was identified, if the bailee was unpaid he had the option of going to law with him or of [clearing himself by] an oath, whereas if he was a paid bailee he would have to go to law with the thief and could not clear himself by an oath?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.M. 93b. ');">¹⁷</span> — Raba could say to you that [in this last ruling] we are dealing with a case where the paid bailee took the oath before [the thief was identified].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the depositor will himself have to deal with the case. ');">¹⁸</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 216:11. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.