Study Bava Kamma folio 108B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
but if he took an oath, even though he subsequently paid, to whom does the thief pay double payment? To the owner of the deposit.
Rava inferred the halakha from the wording of the latter clause. It teaches: If the bailee took an oath and did not want to pay, the thief must pay the penalty to the owner of the deposit. Rava infers from here that the reason the thief pays the owner is specifically that he did not want to pay, b
The Talmud notes: The inference from the latter clause is difficult for the opinion of Abaye. The Talmud explains. Abaye could have said to you: This is what the latter clause of the Mishnah is teaching: If the bailee took an oath and did not want to pay initially before taking the oath, but rath
§ The Talmud relates another dilemma concerning the status of a bailee and stolen deposits. If the owner of a deposit demanded from a bailee that he return their deposit, and he claimed that it had been stolen from him and took an oath to that effect; and then the thief was recognized, and the bail
Rava says: If he took an oath truthfully, i.e., if it now becomes clear through the testimony of witnesses that the bailee’s oath was true, he is assumed to be someone the owner would rely on to collect the stolen item for him, and he remains a bailee. Therefore, the thief became exempt through his