Commentary for Bava Metzia 67:8
תניא כותיה דר' יוחנן השוכר פרה מחבירו ונגנבה ואמר הלה הריני משלם ואיני נשבע ואח"כ נמצא הגנב משלם תשלומי כפל לשוכר
We learnt: AND HE PAYS, DECLINING TO SWEAR; [this implies,] only if he actually pays, but not otherwise? But consider the second clause: IF HE SWEARS, NOT WISHING TO PAY; [which implies] only if he did not consent, but if he consented, even if he had not actually paid [the double repayment is his]! Hence no inference can be drawn from this.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only one clause is stated exactly, so that no particular inference can be drawn. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
Maharam Schiff on Bava Metzia
3. A Borrower that said I will pay etc. By the other's (the paid and unpaid watchman) its not enough for him (Rav papa) to say the language that (the watchmen said) behold I will be paying, for he wants to teach us the (Halchik) rule (that the caretaker buys the right to the double etc) even if he (the watchman) said I was negligent.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy