## Bava Kamma Daf 105b

###### Bava Kamma 105b:1
[Bava Kamma 105b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/105b:1)

נִשְׁבַּע עָלָיו, מַהוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן: כֵּיוָן דְּאִי מִיגְּנֵב בָּעֵי שַׁלּוֹמֵי לֵיהּ – מָמוֹנָא קָא כָפַר לֵיהּ; אוֹ דִלְמָא, הַשְׁתָּא מִיהַת הָא מַנַּח וְעַפְרָא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא, וְלָא כָּפַר לֵיהּ מָמוֹנָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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 one-fifth 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.


###### Bava Kamma 105b:2
[Bava Kamma 105b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/105b:2)

מִילְּתָא דְּאִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ לְרָבָא, פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ לְרַבָּה – דְּאָמַר רַבָּה: ״שׁוֹרִי גָּנַבְתָּ״, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר: ״לֹא גָּנַבְתִּי״;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara 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.


###### Bava Kamma 105b:3
[Bava Kamma 105b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/105b:3)

״מָה טִיבוֹ אֶצְלְךָ?״ ״שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם אֲנִי עָלָיו״ – חַיָּיב, שֶׁהֲרֵי פָּטַר עַצְמוֹ מִגְּנֵיבָה וַאֲבֵידָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Bava Kamma 105b:4
[Bava Kamma 105b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/105b:4)

״שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר אֲנִי עָלָיו״ – חַיָּיב, שֶׁהֲרֵי פָּטַר עַצְמוֹ מִשְּׁבוּרָה וּמֵתָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If he responds instead: **I am a paid bailee over it,** and 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 **breakage and death.**


###### Bava Kamma 105b:5
[Bava Kamma 105b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/105b:5)

״שׁוֹאֵל אֲנִי עָלָיו״ – חַיָּיב, שֶׁהֲרֵי פָּטַר עַצְמוֹ מִמֵּתָה מֵחֲמַת מְלָאכָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If he responds instead: **I am a borrower of it,** and 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 where the ox **died due to** ordinary **labor.**


###### Bava Kamma 105b:6
[Bava Kamma 105b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/105b:6)

אַלְמָא אַף עַל גַּב דְּהָא קָאֵים – כֵּיוָן דְּאִי מִיגְּנֵיב מָמוֹנָא קָא כָפַר, הַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי מָמוֹנָא קָא כָפַר; הָכָא נָמֵי, אַף עַל גַּב דְּעַפְרָא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא – כֵּיוָן דְּאִי מִיגְּנִיב בָּעֵי שַׁלּוֹמֵי לֵיהּ מָמוֹנָא מְעַלְּיָא, הַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי מָמוֹנָא קָא כָפַר לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In all of these cases, the ox is in the possession of the one who took the false oath, and he admits that it belongs to the other. The Gemara analyzes Rabba’s statement: **Apparently,** Rabba holds that **even though** the ox is now **extant** and can be returned to its owner, **since, if it were to be stolen,** the robber **would** be found to **be denying** a claim of **a monetary matter,** as according to his claim he would then be exempt from paying, he is **now** considered to **be denying** a claim of **a monetary matter as well. Here,** in the case of the bread **also, even though it is** considered **mere dust, since, if it were to be stolen, he would be required to pay** the robbery victim **full-fledged monetary restitution,** he is **now** considered to **be denying** a claim of **a monetary matter as well.**


###### Bava Kamma 105b:7
[Bava Kamma 105b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/105b:7)

יָתֵיב רָבָא וְקָאָמַר לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב עַמְרָם לְרָבָא: ״וְכִחֵשׁ בָּהּ״ – פְּרָט לְמוֹדֶה בָּעִיקָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava sat and said this *halakha*,** that one who protected himself from potential liability for payment by taking a false oath that he is a bailee is liable to pay the additional one-fifth payment and bring a guilt-offering. **Rav Amram raised an objection to Rava** from a *baraita*: The verse states concerning one who is liable for taking a false oath concerning a monetary matter: **“And deals falsely with it”** (Leviticus 5:22); this serves to **exclude one who admits to the primary** feature of a claim.


###### Bava Kamma 105b:8
[Bava Kamma 105b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/105b:8)

כֵּיצַד? ״שׁוֹרִי גָּנַבְתָּ״, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר: ״לֹא גָּנַבְתִּי״;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **How** is this **so?** In a scenario where one says to another: **You stole my ox, and** the latter **says: I did not steal** it.


###### Bava Kamma 105b:9
[Bava Kamma 105b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/105b:9)

״מָה טִיבוֹ אֶצְלְךָ?״ ״אַתָּה מְכַרְתּוֹ לִי״; ״אַתָּה נְתַתּוֹ לִי בְּמַתָּנָה״; ״אָבִיךָ מְכָרוֹ לִי״; ״אָבִיךָ נְתָנוֹ לִי בְּמַתָּנָה״; ״אַחַר פָּרָתִי רָץ״; ״מֵאֵלָיו בָּא אֶצְלִי״; ״תּוֹעֶה בַּדֶּרֶךְ מְצָאתִיו״; ״שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם אֲנִי עָלָיו״; ״שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר אֲנִי עָלָיו״; ״שׁוֹאֵל אֲנִי עָלָיו״ – וְנִשְׁבַּע וְהוֹדָה; יָכוֹל יְהֵא חַיָּיב? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְכִחֵשׁ בָּהּ״ – פְּרָט לְמוֹדֶה בָּעִיקָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The first asks: **What** is the **nature of its** presence **in your** possession? The second responds with any of the following replies: **You sold it to me; you gave it to me as a gift; your father sold it to me; your father gave it to me as a gift; it chased after my cow** and entered my domain; **it came to me on its own; I found it straying on the road** and I brought it home; **I am an unpaid bailee over it; I am a paid bailee over it;** or **I am a borrower of it; and** the second **takes** a false **oath** to that effect, **and** then **admits** that he had done so; one **might** have thought that he **should be liable. The verse states: “And deals falsely with it,”** which serves to **exclude one who admits to the primary** feature of a claim. The *baraita* states explicitly that one who takes a false oath that he is a bailee is not liable; how can Rava state otherwise?


###### Bava Kamma 105b:10
[Bava Kamma 105b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/105b:10)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תְּדוֹרָא! כִּי תַּנְיָא הָהִיא – דְּקָאָמַר לֵיהּ: ״הֵילָךְ״, כִּי קָאָמֵינָא – דְּקָיְימָא בַּאֲגַם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava **said to him: Fool, when that** *baraita* **is taught,** it is referring to a case **where** the robber **said to** the owner: **Here you are,** and presented the ox to him immediately, so that he did not profit by claiming that he was a bailee. **When I spoke,** I was referring to a case **where** the ox **was standing in** a different place, such as **a swamp,** and was not returned to the owner.


###### Bava Kamma 105b:11
[Bava Kamma 105b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/105b:11)

״אַתָּה מְכַרְתּוֹ לִי״ – מַאי מוֹדֶה בָּעִיקָּר אִיכָּא? לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: ״לֹא נָתַתִּי לְךָ דְּמֵי, שְׁקֹיל תּוֹרָךְ וְזִיל״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Several examples of an oath in which the robber admits to the primary feature of a claim were cited in the *baraita* above. The Gemara analyzes some of these examples. When the robber says: **You sold** the ox **to me,** he has asserted that it belongs to him, so **what admission to the primary** feature of the claim **is there?** The Gemara explains: **No,** it is **necessary** to teach this in a case **where he said to him:** You sold the animal to me, but **I did not give you** the **money, take your ox and go.**


###### Bava Kamma 105b:12
[Bava Kamma 105b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/105b:12)

״אַתָּה נְתַתּוֹ לִי״; ״אָבִיךָ נְתָנוֹ לִי״ – מַאי מוֹדֶה בָּעִיקָּר אִיכָּא? דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: ״עַל מְנָת דְּעָבֵידְנָא לָךְ נְיָיח דְּנַפְשָׁא, וְלָא עֲבַדִי לָךְ, שְׁקֹיל תּוֹרָךְ וְזִיל״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
When the robber says: **You gave it to me,** or: **Your father gave it to me,** he has asserted that it belongs to him, so **what admission to the primary** feature of the claim **is there?** The Gemara explains: It is a case **where he said to him:** It was given to me **on the condition that I will afford you satisfaction, and I did not do** anything **for you; take your ox and go.**


###### Bava Kamma 105b:13
[Bava Kamma 105b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/105b:13)

״תּוֹעֶה בַּדֶּרֶךְ מְצָאתִיו״ – לֵימָא: אִיבְּעִי לָךְ לְאַהֲדוֹרֵיהּ לִי! אָמַר אֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, בְּאוֹמֵר: ״שְׁבוּעָה – אֲבֵידָה מָצָאתִי, וְלֹא הָיִיתִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהִיא שֶׁלְּךָ שֶׁאַחְזִירֶנָּה לָךְ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
When the robber says: **I found it straying on the road** and I brought it home, **let** the owner **say** to him: **You should have returned it to me. Shmuel’s father said:** The *baraita* is referring to a case **in** which **he says:** I take **an oath** that **I found** the ox as **a lost item, and I did not know that it was yours so that I could return it to you.**


###### Bava Kamma 105b:14
[Bava Kamma 105b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/105b:14)

תַּנְיָא, אָמַר בֶּן עַזַּאי: שָׁלֹשׁ שְׁבוּעוֹת הֵן – הִכִּיר בָּהּ וְלֹא בְּמוֹצְאָהּ, בְּמוֹצְאָהּ וְלֹא בָּהּ, לֹא בָּהּ וְלֹא בְּמוֹצְאָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ After discussing a false oath taken by a robber in which he admits to the primary feature of a claim, the Gemara discusses a false oath taken by witnesses. **It is taught** in a *baraita*: When a witness takes an oath that he has no knowledge of the status of a lost item, **ben Azzai says** that **there are three** possible false **oaths,** i.e., the oath may be false for one of three reasons: The witness may have **recognized** the lost item **but** did **not** recognize **its finder,** or he may have recognized **its finder but** did **not** recognize the item, or he may have recognized **neither** the item **nor its finder.** In each of these cases, the witness took a false oath that he had no knowledge of the lost item, when in fact he had limited knowledge of it.


###### Bava Kamma 105b:15
[Bava Kamma 105b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/105b:15)

לֹא בָּהּ וְלֹא בְּמוֹצְאָהּ?! קוּשְׁטָא אִשְׁתְּבַע! אֵימָא: בָּהּ וּבְמוֹצְאָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: In the third case cited above, where the witnesses recognized **neither** the item **nor its finder, he took his oath in truth** when he claimed that he did not have knowledge of the lost item. Why is this cited as an example of a false oath? The Gemara emends the *baraita*: **Say** that the reference here is to a case where he recognized both the item **and its finder.**


###### Bava Kamma 105b:16
[Bava Kamma 105b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/105b:16)

לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? רַב אַמֵּי אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: לִפְטוּר, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: לְחִיּוּב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **For which *halakha*** did ben Azzai cite these examples? **Rav Ami says** that **Rabbi Ḥanina** says: They were cited **to** teach that there is **exemption** in these cases from bringing an offering for taking a false oath of testimony. **And Shmuel says** that these examples were cited **to** teach that the witness incurs **liability** to bring an offering in these cases.


###### Bava Kamma 105b:17
[Bava Kamma 105b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/105b:17)

וּבִפְלוּגְתָּא דְּהָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי, דְּתַנְיָא: הַמַּשְׁבִּיעַ עֵד אֶחָד – פָּטוּר, וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מְחַיֵּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And** Rav Ami and Shmuel disagree **with regard to** the issue that is the subject of **the dispute** between **these *tanna’im*, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **one who administers an oath** to **a single witness** and the witness takes a false oath that he has no awareness of the monetary matter at hand, the witness is **exempt** from bringing a sin-offering; **and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, deems** the witness **liable** to bring a sin-offering.


###### Bava Kamma 105b:18
[Bava Kamma 105b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/105b:18)

בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי? מָר סָבַר: דָּבָר הַגּוֹרֵם לְמָמוֹן – כְּמָמוֹן דָּמֵי, וּמָר סָבַר: לָאו כְּמָמוֹן דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **With regard to what do they disagree?** One **Sage,** Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, **holds** that **an item that causes financial** loss **is considered** to have **monetary** value. Similarly, the potential monetary benefit that the witness can generate by causing the defendant to admit to the debt and pay the owner is considered to have monetary value. Therefore, the witness is considered to have taken a false oath with regard to a monetary matter. **And** one **Sage,** the first *tanna*, **holds** that an item that causes financial loss **is not considered** to have **monetary** value. Similarly, the potential monetary benefit that the witness can generate by causing the defendant to admit to the debt and pay the owner is not considered to have monetary value. Therefore, the witness is not considered to have taken a false oath with regard to a monetary matter.


###### Bava Kamma 105b:19
[Bava Kamma 105b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/105b:19)

אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: הַכּוֹפֵר בְּפִקָּדוֹן – נַעֲשֶׂה עָלָיו גַּזְלָן, וְחַיָּיב בָּאוֹנָסִין. וְתַנָּא תּוּנָא: ״וְכִחֵשׁ בָּהּ״ – לָמַדְנוּ עוֹנֶשׁ. אַזְהָרָה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא תְכַחֲשׁוּ״. מַאי, לָאו לְעוֹנֶשׁ מָמוֹן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara discusses the *halakha* concerning a bailee who denies having a deposit in his possession. **Rav Sheshet says:** A bailee **who** falsely **denies** a claim **concerning a deposit becomes** as **a robber with regard to it, and** he is therefore **liable** to pay even **for** damage that is the result of **accidents.** The Gemara notes that **the *tanna*** also **taught** this *halakha* in a *baraita*. The verse states: **“And deals falsely with it”** (Leviticus 5:22–24), and **we learned** from this verse the **punishment** for one who denies having a deposit. **From where** is the **prohibition** itself derived? **The verse states: “Neither shall you deal falsely”** (Leviticus 19:11). The Gemara explains: **What, is** the *baraita* **not** referring **to** the **punishment of** having to pay **money** due to his denial even for accidental damage, in accordance with the statement of Rav Sheshet?


###### Bava Kamma 105b:20
[Bava Kamma 105b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/105b:20)

לָא, לְעוֹנֶשׁ שְׁבוּעָה. הָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא וְאִישְׁתְּבַע, מִכְּלָל דְּרֵישָׁא דְּלָא אִישְׁתְּבַע – דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: ״וְנִשְׁבַּע עַל שָׁקֶר״ – לָמַדְנוּ עוֹנֶשׁ. אַזְהָרָה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא תְשַׁקְּרוּ״. וּמִדְּסֵיפָא דְּאִישְׁתְּבַע, רֵישָׁא דְּלָא אִישְׁתְּבַע!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **No,** the *baraita* is referring **to** the **punishment** for taking a false **oath,** i.e., the additional one-fifth payment and the bringing of the offering. The Gemara challenges: **From** the fact **that the latter clause** of the *baraita* **teaches** a case **where he took an oath, it may be inferred that the first clause** teaches a case **where he did not take an oath,** and the punishment referred to by the *baraita* is the imposition of liability for accidental damage. **As the latter clause teaches** that the verse states: **“And swear to a lie”** (Leviticus 5:22), and **we learned** from this that there is **a punishment** for taking a false oath. **From where** is the **prohibition** itself derived? **The verse states: “Nor lie”** (Leviticus 19:11). **And from** the fact **that the latter clause** teaches the *halakha* **where he took an oath, the first clause** must be teaching the *halakha* in a case **where he did not take an oath.**


###### Bava Kamma 105b:21
[Bava Kamma 105b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/105b:21)

אָמְרִי: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי דְּאִישְׁתְּבַע; כָּאן שֶׁהוֹדָה, כָּאן שֶׁבָּאוּ עֵדִים. אֲתוֹ עֵדִים – חַיָּיב בְּאוּנְסִין. אוֹדוֹיֵי אוֹדִי – חַיָּיב בְּקֶרֶן וְחוֹמֶשׁ וְאָשָׁם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The Sages **say** in response that both **this** clause **and that** clause are referring to a case **where he took an oath,** but **here,** in the latter clause, it is **where** the bailee **admitted** his false oath, while **there,** in the first clause, it is **where witnesses came** and testified that the deposit is in his possession. Where **witnesses came,** he is **liable** only **for** damage that is a result of **accidents,** and **where he admitted** his false oath, he is **obligated** to pay for the **principal and** an additional **one-fifth** payment, **and** to bring **a guilt-offering.** Since the *baraita* is referring in both clauses to a case where the bailee took an oath, it offers no support for Rav Sheshet’s statement.


###### Bava Kamma 105b:22
[Bava Kamma 105b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/105b:22)

מֵתִיב רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: וְשֶׁכְּנֶגְדּוֹ חָשׁוּד עַל הַשְּׁבוּעָה – כֵּיצַד? אֶחָד שְׁבוּעַת הָעֵדוּת, וְאֶחָד שְׁבוּעַת הַפִּקָּדוֹן, וַאֲפִילּוּ שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
After dismissing the attempted proof for Rav Sheshet’s statement that a bailee who denies possession of a deposit is considered a robber even without having taken a false oath, the Gemara now attempts to disprove the statement itself. **Rami bar Ḥama raises an objection** to Rav Sheshet’s statement: Though it is usually the defendant who is required to take an oath in order to avoid having to pay a claim, there are cases in which the plaintiff takes an oath to receive payment. The mishna in *Shevuot* (44b) lists these cases: **And** one such case is **where** the plaintiff’s **opponent,** i.e., the defendant, **is suspect with regard to an oath,** i.e., there is reason for the court to believe that he would take a false oath. **How** would the defendant have become suspect? It would be by having taken a false oath with regard to **either an oath of testimony or an oath on a deposit, or even** for **an oath** taken in **vain.**


###### Bava Kamma 105b:23
[Bava Kamma 105b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/105b:23)

וְאִם אִיתָא, בִּכְפִירָה הוּא דְּאִיפְּסִיל לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: Since the mishna states that he becomes suspect only as a result of having taken a false oath, it can be inferred that he does not become suspect by virtue of denial of a claim alone. **And if it is so** that a bailee who denies having taken the deposit is considered a robber even without having taken an oath, then **it is with** his **denial that he** ought to be **disqualified,** as a robber does not have the credibility to take an oath.


###### Bava Kamma 105b:24
[Bava Kamma 105b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/105b:24)

אָמְרִי: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – דְּקָאֵי בַּאֲגַם, דְּלָאו כְּפִירָה הוּא; דְּסָבַר: אִשְׁתְּמִיטְנָא לֵיהּ אַדְּאָזֵילְנָא וּמַיְיתֵינָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **say** in defense of Rav Sheshet’s opinion: **With what are we dealing here,** in the case of the mishna in *Shevuot*? We are dealing with a case **where** the deposit **stands in** a place not in the bailee’s possession, e.g., **a swamp, as** in this case his statement **is not** considered a complete **denial, because he thinks** to himself: **I will evade** the owner by claiming that I never took the deposit **until I go and bring it to him.** Therefore, he is not considered to be a robber. By contrast, Rav Sheshet is referring to a case where the bailee denied responsibility for the item while it was in his possession, as he intended to keep it for himself.


###### Bava Kamma 105b:25
[Bava Kamma 105b:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/105b:25)

תִּדַּע, דְּאָמַר רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין: הַכּוֹפֵר בְּמִלְוָה – כָּשֵׁר לְעֵדוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara adds: **Know** that one who denies possession of an item only so that he may later return it is not considered a robber, **as Rav Idi bar Avin says: One who denies** a claim **concerning** having taken **a loan is fit to bear witness,**