Study Bava Kamma folio 105B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
נשבע עליו, מהו? מי אמרינן: כיון דאי מיגנב בעי שלומי ליה – ממונא קא כפר ליה; או דלמא, השתא מיהת הא מנח ועפרא בעלמא הוא, ולא כפר ליה ממונא?
If the robber took a false oath concerning the robbery of the leavened bread, what is the halakha? Do we say that since, if it were to be stolen from the robber, the robber would need to pay the initial value of the bread to the robbery victim, as he can no longer say: That which is yours is before you, and therefore he has denied a claim of a monetary matter to the robbery victim and must consequently pay the additional 1/5th payment and bring a guilt-offering? Or perhaps we say that now, in any event, it is resting in the robber’s possession and it is considered as mere dust, since it is prohibited to derive benefit from it, and as such he has not denied a claim of a monetary matter, and the halakhot concerning a false oath do not apply.
The Talmud comments: The matter that was a dilemma for Rava is obvious to Rabba, as Rabba says that in a scenario where one says to another: You stole my ox, and the other says: I did not steal it.
״מה טיבו אצלך?״ ״שומר חנם אני עליו״ – חייב, שהרי פטר עצמו מגניבה ואבידה.
The first asks: What is the nature of its presence in your possession? The second responds: I am an unpaid bailee over it. If the defendant then takes a false oath to that effect, after which he confesses that he stole the ox, he is liable to bring a guilt-offering for denying a claim of a monetary matter, as he exempted himself from liability in cases of theft and loss.