Commentary for Bava Kamma 216:5

אמר רבא אם באמת נשבע נפטר הגנב בהודאת שומר אם בשקר נשבע לא נפטר הגנב בהודאת שומר

But Raba asked: What would be the law where the bailee was prepared to swear falsely but [it so happened that for some reason or other] he was not allowed to do so?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Has the trust in him thereby been impaired or not? ');">⁷</span> — This must remain undecided. But while R. Kahana was stating the text thus, R. Tabyomi was reading it as follows: 'Rab asked: What would be the law where the bailee has sworn falsely [to defend himself]?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shall it be said that though he had already sworn inaccurately he would sooner or later have been compelled by his conscience to make restoration, as he in fact exerted himself to look for the thief and should therefore still retain the trust reposed in him, especially since the article had really been stolen though he advanced for some reason another plea; R. Tabyomi had thus not read the concluding clause in the definite statement made above by Raba. ');">⁸</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 216:5. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.