Bava Kamma

He who falsely alleges the theft [to account for the non-production] of a find,  may have to make double payment,  as it says, 'for any manner of lost thing whereof one saith …' We have learnt elsewhere:  [If a man says to another] 'Where is my deposit?', and the bailee says 'It was lost', whereupon [the depositor says], 'I call upon you to swear' and the bailee says, 'So be it',  if witnesses testify against him that he himself had consumed it, he has to pay [only] the principal,  but if he admits [this] of himself, he has to pay the principal together with a fifth and a trespass offering.  [If the depositor says] 'Where is my deposit?', and the bailee answers 'It was stolen!', [whereupon the depositor says] 'I call on you to swear', and the bailee says, 'So be it',  if witnesses testify against him that he himself had stolen it, he has to make double payment,  but if he admits [this] on his own accord, he has to pay the principal together with a fifth and a trespass offering.  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;  this verse deals with a bailee  who falsely alleges theft.  Or perhaps not so, but with the thief himself?  — As, however, it is further stated, If the thief be not found,  we must conclude that the [whole] verse  deals with a bailee falsely advancing a plea of theft. Another [Baraitha] teaches: If the thief be found: this verse deals with the thief himself.  You say that it deals with the thief himself. Why, however, not say that it is not so, but that it deals with a bailee falsely alleging theft? — When it further states, If the thief be not found this gives us the case of a bailee falsely alleging theft, How then can I explain [the verse] If the thief be found unless on the supposition that this deals with the thief himself!  We see at any rate that all agree that [the verse] If the thief be not found deals with a bailee falsely alleging theft. But how is this implied [in the wording of the text]? — Raba said: [We understand the verse to say that] if it will not be found as he  stated  but that he himself had stolen it, he has to pay double. But whence can we conclude that this is so only in the case of an oath [having been falsely taken by the bailee]? — As it was taught: The master of the house shall come near unto the judges  to take an oath. You say to take an oath. Why not say, however, that this is not so, but to stand his trial?  — The words 'put his hand unto his neighbour's goods' occur in a subsequent section  and the words 'put his hand unto his neighbour's goods' occur in this section  which precedes the other one; just as there  it is associated with an oath,  so here also it should be associated with an oath. Now on the supposition  that one verse deals  with a thief and the other  with [a bailee falsely] alleging theft we quite understand why there are two verses; but on the supposition  that both of them deal with a bailee falsely alleging theft, why do I want two verses?  — It may be replied that one is to exclude the case of a false allegation of loss [from entailing double payment]. Now on the supposition  that one verse deals with a thief and the other with [a bailee falsely] alleging theft, in which case there will be no superfluous verse [in the text] whence can we derive the exclusion of a false allegation of loss [from entailing double payment]? — From [the definite article; as instead of] 'thief' [it is written] 'the thief'.  On the supposition  that both of the verses deal with [a bailee falsely] alleging theft, in which case Scripture excludes a bailee falsely alleging loss, how could [the fact that instead of] 'thief' [it is written] 'the thief' be expounded? — He might say to you that it furnishes a basis for the view of R. Hiyya b. Abba reported in the name of R. Johanan, as R. Hiyya b. Abba stated  that R. Johanan said that he who falsely alleges theft in the case of a deposit would have to make double payment, and so also if he slaughtered or sold it he would have to make fourfold or five-fold payment. But on the supposition  that one verse deals with a thief and the other with [a bailee falsely] alleging theft, and that [the fact that instead of] 'thief', 'the thief' [is written] has been used to exclude a false allegation of loss [from entailing double payment], whence could be derived the view of R. Hiyya b. Abba?  — He might say to you: A thief and a bailee falsely alleging theft are made analogous to one another in Scripture,  and no objections can be entertained against an analogy.  This is all very well on the supposition that one verse deals with a thief and the other with [a bailee falsely] alleging theft. But on the supposition that both of them deal with [a bailee falsely] alleging theft, whence can the law of double payment  be derived in the case of a thief himself? And should you say that it can be derived by means of an a fortiori argument from the law of [a bailee falsely] alleging theft, [we may ask], is it not sufficient for the object to which the inference is made to be placed on the same footing as the object from which it is made,  so that just as there  [the penalty is entailed only where there] is false swearing, so here also  [it should be entailed only] where there is false swearing? — It could be derived by the reasoning taught at the School of Hezekiah. For it was taught at the School of Hezekiah: Should not Scripture have mentioned only 'ox' and 'theft'  as everything would thus have been included? — If so, I might say that just as the specification  mentions an object which is eligible to be sacrificed upon the altar any [living] object which is eligible to be sacrificed upon the altar should be included. What can you include through this? A sheep  [as subject to double payment].