Study Bava Kamma folio 108A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
and witnesses come and testify with regard to his first claim that at the time he took an oath that the deposit had been stolen, it was actually in his possession; and he admits with regard to his second claim that it had been a lie and that it had not actually been lost, what is the halakha: Is he
The Talmud explains the two possibilities: Is it being obligated in a monetary obligation that renders him liable for double payment which exempts him from the additional 1/5th payment, and in this case he is liable for the double payment for the deposit due to the witness testimony and would theref
Rava said: Come and hear a solution to this dilemma from a Mishnah (Shevuot 49b): In a scenario where one said to someone from the marketplace: Where is my ox that you stole? And the accused says in response: I did not steal it; whereupon the owner of the ox said: I administer an oath to you, and th
Rava explains the proof: But here, it is witnesses who render him liable for the double payment, as since the accused was not a bailee, the oath does not render him liable, and yet the Mishnah teaches that if he admitted of his own accord that he stole it, then yes, he must pay the additional 1/5
Rava continues: And if it enters your mind to say that it is an oath that renders him liable for double payment which exempts him from the additional 1/5th payment, why does he not pay the additional 1/5th payment if he admitted that it was a false oath after witnesses testified? After all, this oat