Responsa for Bava Kamma 126:6
אתה אומר בטוען טענת גנב או אינו אלא בגנב עצמו כשהוא אומר אם לא ימצא הגנב בטוען טענת גנב הכתוב מדבר
It is thus stated here that it is only where the bailee falsely alleges theft that he has to make double payment, whereas if he falsely alleges loss, he has not to make double payment. Again, even where he falsely alleges theft it is only where [he confirms the allegation] by an oath that he has to make double payment, whereas where no oath [follows] he has not to make double payment. What is the Scriptural authority for all this? — As the Rabbis taught: If the thief be found;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 6. ');"><sup>9</sup></span> this verse deals with a bailee<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., unpaid. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
(2) C went surety for A to B promising to pay him a certain amount if A should break the terms of the contract.*That two questions were asked of R. Meir, one regarding security, and another regarding a surety, is seen from the fact that towards the end of this Responsum (in the Pr. 130 version which deals with a pledge) R. Meir uses the phrase וכ׳׳ש ערב לא משתעבד מק׳׳ו המשכון עצמו פטור כ׳׳ש הערב, which seems to indicate that the question was also about a surety. Furthermore, Responsum Cr. 34, gives exactly the same answer as Pr. 130, regarding a surety. Do such transactions fall under the rule of asmakta (אסמכתא)?
A. Both cases fall under the rule of asmakta and are, therefore, not binding.
SOURCES: Cr. 34, Pr. 130; L. 356; Asher, Responsa 108, 27.