Related%20passage for Bava Kamma 212:5

מה לגנב שכן משלם תשלומי כפל שלא בשבועה תאמר בטוען טענת גנב שאין משלם תשלומי כפל אלא בשבועה

But how can you argue from a thief who has to repay double even in the absence of perjury to a bailee pleading the defence of theft where no double payment has to be made unless where a false oath was taken? — It might, however, be said that a thief and a bailee alleging theft are made analagous [in Scripture],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit. 'It is an analogy, hekkesh. In Ex. XXII, 6-8 as interpreted supra pp. 368 ff. ');">⁷</span> and no refutation could be made against an analogy [in Scripture].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This being an axiomatic hermeneutic rule; v. supra 63b and Men. 82b. ');">⁸</span>

Explore related%20passage for Bava Kamma 212:5. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.