## Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot Chapter 8

###### Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 8:1:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 8:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shevuot/r/8:1:1)

**משנה:** אַרְבָּעָה שׁוֹמְרִין הֵן שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר. שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם נִשְׁבָּע עַל הַכֹּל וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַכֹּל. נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר וְהַשֹּוֹכֵר נִשְׁבָּעִים עַל הַשֶּׁבֶר וְעַל הַשְּׁבוּיָה וְעַל הַמִּיתָה וּמְשַׁלְּמִין אֶת הָאֲבֵידָה וְאֶת הַגְּנֵיבָה:

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** ¹7:9. There are four kinds of keepers: The unpaid trustee and the borrower, the paid keeper, and the renter. The unpaid trustee swears about everything²; the borrower pays for everything; the paid keeper and the renter swear about breakage, abduction, and death, but pay for the lost and the stolen³.

footnotes:
¹ The same Mishnah already was part of Bava meṣi`a
² He has to swear that he did not take anything and that in case anything was lost it was not his fault.
³ They do not pay for what happened beyond their control.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 8:1:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 8:1:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shevuot/r/8:1:2)

**הלכה:** אַרְבָּעָה שׁוֹמְרִין הֵן כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אַרְבָּעָה שׁוֹמְרִין הֵן וְאֵין חַיָיבִין אֶלָּא דֶּרֶךְ קִינְיָין. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעְזָר. אַף לְעִנְיָין גְּזֵילָה אֵין חַיָיבִין אֶלָּא דֶּרֶךְ קִינְיָין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. וּמַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה כֵן. הַמְקַבֵּל שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ כול׳. רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן. אַף בִּגְנֵיבָה אֵין חַיָיבִין אֶלָּא דֶּרֶךְ קִינְיָין. רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי פִינְחָס. וּמַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה כֵן. הָיָה מוֹשְׁכוֹ וְיוֹצֵא וּמֵת בִּרְשׁוּת הַבְּעָלִים פָּטוּר. הִגְבִּיהוֹ אוֹ הוֹצִיאוֹ מֵרְשׁוּת הַבְּעָלִים וָמֵת חַיָיב. הִגְבִּיהוֹ בִרְשׁוּת הַבְּעָלִים כְּמִי שֶׁיָּצָא כָל רְשׁוּת הַבְּעָלִים. הָיָה מוֹשְׁכוֹ וְיוֹצֵא עַד שֶׁיָּצָא כָל רְשׁוּת הַבְּעָלִים. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. בְּעוֹמֶדֶת בַּאֲבוּסוֹ. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה בָעֵי. אִם בְּעוֹמֶדֶת בָּאֲבוּסוֹ אֲפִילוּ לֹא מָשַׁךְ. אֶלָּא כִי נָן קַיָימִין בְּעוֹמֶדֶת בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. מַה. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה כְבֵית שַׁמַּי. דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים. יִלְקֶה בְּחָסֵר וְיָתֵר. מָה נָן קַיָימִין. אִם בְּעוֹמֶדֶת בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְחָשַׁב לְגוֹזְלָהּ וָמֵתָה בְּאוֹתָהּ הַמַּחֲשָׁבָה דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל חַיָיב. אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא מָשַׁךְ דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פָּטוּר. אֶלָּא כִי נָן קַיָימִין בְּעוֹמֶדֶת בַּאֲבוּסוֹ. כִּדְאָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה כְבֵית שַׁמַּי. אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן. תַּמָּן בְּקוֹנֶה שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעַת הַבְּעָלִים. בְּרַם הָכָא בְּקוֹנֶה מִדַּעַת הַבְּעָלִים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “There are four kinds of keepers,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there are four kinds of keepers and they become liable only through acquisition⁴79a, this is treated as an old (tannaitic or pre-tannaitic) rabbinic institution. Since keepers incur financial responsibilities, the moment in time when responsibility is transferred from owner to keeper must be well defined. The rules of this transfer are borrowed from the rules of buying and selling. Any act which would transfer property from the seller also transfers responsibility from owner to keeper; absent such an act no responsibility is transferred.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Also in matters of robbery they become liable only through acquisition. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, a *baraita* said so: “one who contracts with another for a field,”⁵9:12. If somebody contracts to care for a field and then neglects his duty so that there is no yield, he can be sued for damages only if there was an act of acquisition. etc. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, Rebbi Abun, also in theft cases they become liable only through acquisition⁶. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Phineas, our Mishnah said so: “If he was pulling it to lead it out but it died on the owner’s property, he is not liable. If he lifted it or had it led outside the owner’s property when it died, he is liable.⁷7:8, Notes 83–84, describing rustling of animals.” If he lifted it inside the owner’s property it is as if he had taken it out of the entire property of the owner. If he was pulling it and it left, only after it left the entire property of the owner. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If it was standing at his feeding trough⁸31b, an opinion ascribed to Rabinna II. An animal pulled or pushed into the public domain is not thereby acquired by the thief; it becomes acquired only when it is brought into the thief’s private property.. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: If it was standing at his feeding trough then even if he did not pull it⁹6:2, Note 71). Since the owners do not know where their lost object is, they cannot make a mental reservation which would annul the acquisition.! But we must deal with the case that it was standing in the public domain¹⁰., opinion ascribed to Rav Aḥa (bar Rava), of the last generation of Babylonian Amoraim.. Does Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya follow the House of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say, “he shall be hit by less or more”¹¹3:13. The dishonest keeper in the opinion of the House of Shammai has to pay the larger of the values of the object either at the time it was given to him or when it should have been returned. The House of Hillel makes him pay the value at the time he took possession, R. Aqiba the value at the time of the claim. This has nothing to do with the problem here. The Mishnah there continues: “If somebody intends to take the deposit, the House of Shammai hold him liable, but the House of Hillel say, he is liable only from the moment he takes it.” Since in the public domain acquisition is effected only by lifting the object, not by dragging it, liability for cattle rustling in the public domain exists only for the House of Shammai.? How do we hold? If it was standing in the public domain and he intended to rustle it when it died, according to everybody he became liable by that intention. If he did not start to pull it, according to everybody he is not liable¹². But we most hold that it was standing at a feeding trough on his property¹³ notes that for the House of Shammai full liability starts when the animal enters the robber’s property while the House of Hillel require an act or at least a declared intent of acquisition.. As Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, following the House of Shammai. Rebbi Abun said, there he acquired without the knowledge of its owner; but here when he acquires with the knowledge of its owner¹⁴.

footnotes:
⁴ In the Babli, Bava qamma
⁵ Tosephta Bava meṣi`a
⁶ The act of stealing is completed andthe thief responsible for double restitution only after an act of acquisition, such as putting the stolen object in his pocket. If the thief is discovered while he is dragging away some object in the owner’s house, he is not liable for double restitution since as long as the object was not lifted it was not acquired by the thief as long as he did not reach the public domain.
⁷ Mishnah Bava qamma
⁸ Babli Ketubot
⁹ Since we hold that the property of a person acquires abandoned property found on it (cf. Giṭtin
¹⁰ In the Babli, loc. cit
¹¹ Mishnah Bava meṣi`a
¹² The statement is elliptic. If he intended to rustle an animal but did not do it, even the House of Shammai agree that thought without action is without legal consequences. If he pulled the animal along, and declared before witnesses that he intended to rustle this animal, even the House of Hillel will agree that he accepted liability for his act.
¹³ The Mishnah in Bava meṣi`a
¹⁴ While an act of acquisition may be required for liability both of the keeper and of the thief, the details of what is considered as such an act are different in the two cases since acquisition by the will of the owner is less restrictive than that against his will.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 8:1:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 8:1:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shevuot/r/8:1:3)

כְּתִיב כִּי יִתֵּן אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ וגו׳. לִשְׁמוֹר. וְלֹא לִקְרוֹעַ. לִשְׁמוֹר. וְלֹא לְהַשְׁלִיךְ. לִשְׁמוֹר. וְלֹא לִיתֵּן בְּמַתָּנָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְהוּא שֶׁאָמַר לִיתֵּן מַתָּנָה לְכָל מִי שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. אֲבָל אָמַר. לִפְלֹנִי. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁשְּׁמִירָתוֹ עָלָיו כְּמִי שֶׁהוּא עָלָיו.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
¹⁵93a. It is written: *If a man give to another*, etc’, *to keep*¹⁶. 22:6.. *To keep*, not to tear it up. *To keep*, not to throw it away. *To keep*, not to give it away as a gift. Rebbi Yose said, only if he said to give it to anyone he likes. But if he said, to X, since he is obligated to keep it is as if he kept it for him¹⁷ that the depositor cannot sue because he renounced ownership and the poor cannot sue since the keeper was free to give to any poor person of his choice..

footnotes:
¹⁵ Babli Bava qamma
¹⁶ Ex
¹⁷ The paragraph gives the rules of the unpaid keeper who in case of loss has to swear that he did not appropriate the article for himself and that it was not lost by his negligence. But if he received the article in order to dispose of it, or to distribute it to the poor, even if it was lost there cannot be any oath. R. Yose points out that this applies only if the charge was to distribute to the poor, not if it was to be delivered to a designated person. Rashi explains in Bava qamma


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 8:1:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 8:1:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shevuot/r/8:1:4)

תַּנֵּי. וְגוּנַּב מִבֵּית הָאִישׁ. לֹא מֵרֹאשׁ גַּגּוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. הָדָא דְתֵימַר בְּגַג שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְבוּצָּר. אֲבָל בְּגַג מְבוּצָּר כְּבַיִת הוּא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated: *If it was stolen from the man’s house*¹⁶. 22:6.. Not from his roof. Rebbi Eleazar said, that means, from an unprotected roof. But a fortified roof is like a house¹⁸.

footnotes:
¹⁶ Ex
¹⁸ Taking anything from a flat roof visible from the outside is not theft but robbery since it was in the open. There can be no double restitution in this case. But if the roof was surrounded by a wall so that nothing deposited there could be seen from the street it is theft and subject to its laws. Keeping a deposit on an open roof is gross negligence on the part of the keeper.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 8:1:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 8:1:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shevuot/r/8:1:5)

תַּנֵּי. וְגוּנַּב מִבֵּית הָאִישׁ. לֹא מִבֵּית הַשּׁוֹאֵל. וָמַר וְגוּנַּב מִבֵּית הָאִישׁ. לֹא מִבֵּית נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר וְהַשּׁוֹכֵר. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁשְּׁמִירָתוֹ עָלָיו כְּמִי שֶׁהוּא עָלָיו. שֶׁתִּימְצָא אוֹמֵר. שָׁלֹשׁ פַּרְשִׁיּוֹת הֵן. הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה בְשׁוֹאֵל. וְהָאֶמְצָעִית בְּנוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר וְהַשּׁוֹכֵר. וְהָעֶלְיוֹנָה בְשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם. שׁוֹאֵל לְפִי שֶׁנֶּהֱנֶה אֶת הַכֹּל מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַכֹּל. נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר וְהַשּׁוֹכֵר לְפִי שֶׁנֶּהֱנֶה מִקְצָת וּמְהַנֶּה מִקְצָת נִשְׁבָּע מִקְצָת וּמְשַׁלֵּם מִקְצָת. שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם שֶׁאֵין לוֹ הֲנָיָיה נִשְׁבָּע וְיוֹצֵא. מָהוּ נִשְׁבָּע. לֹא פָשַׁעְתִּי. הָיוּ אֲחֵרִים יוֹדְעִין שֶׁלֹּא פָשַׁע מַאי. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מֵהָדָא. הֲרֵי שֶׁנִּמְצָא הַגַּנָּב וְאֵין לוֹ לְשַׁלֵּם. מָהוּ שֶׁיֹּאמַר לוֹ. בּוֹא וְהִשָּׁבַע לִי שֶׁלֹּא נָתַתָּ עֵינֶיךָ בָהּ לְגוֹזְלָהּ. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מֵהָדָא. וְאִם לֹא יִמָּצֵא הַגַּנָּב. הָא אִם נִמְצָא פָּטוּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated, *if it was stolen from the man’s house*¹⁶. 22:6.; not from the borrower’s house. *If it was stolen from the man’s house*; not from the house of the paid keeper or the renter¹⁹ this *man’s house*; the rule does not apply to others. By the reason explained later it is clear that the borrower cannot swear; he must pay. There is no intrinsic reason in the verse to exempt the paid keeper and the renter. Why are they exempt? In the Babli *Bekhorot*11a, the verse is read to exclude institutions; cf. *Bava qamma*7:1 (5d 46), Notes 10 ff.? Since he is obligated to watch it, it is as if it referred to him²⁰; for you may say that there are three paragraphs²¹. 22:6–8, 9–11, 13–14. A similar statement in the Babli, *Bava meṣi`a*94b.. The last one about the borrower, the middle one about the paid keeper and the renter, the first one about the unpaid keeper. The borrower who profits from all pays everything. The paid keeper or the renter, because he profits partially and gives partial profit, swears about part and pays part. The unpaid keeper who does not profit at all swears and leaves. What does he swear? I did not commit anything²². What is the situation if others know that he did not commit anything? Let us hear from the following: If the thief was found but has nothing with which to pay, may he say to him²³, swear to me that you were not thinking to take it? Let us hear from the following: *If the thief was not found*²⁴. 22:7. If the thief was found, the unpaid keeper is absolved from any oath. *Mekhilta dR*. *Ismael Neziqin*15.. Therefore, it he was found he is not liable.

footnotes:
¹⁶ Ex
¹⁹ The verse speaks of the unpaid keeper, who swears that he did not take it and that he was not negligent but does not pay. The corresponding cases for the paid keeper and the borrower are not mentioned in the verses. The definite article is interpreted to mean that the verse insists that it was stolen from
²⁰ There is a reason to extend the rule of the unpaid keeper to the paid one.
²¹ Ex
²² He did not take anything for his personal use and was not criminally negligent.
²³ The owner of an object stolen from an unpaid keeper. If he cannot recoup his loss he might be tempted to let the keeper swear in the hope that he might prefer to pay rather than swear.
²⁴ Ex


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 8:1:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 8:1:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shevuot/r/8:1:6)

כְּתִיב כִּי יִתֵּן אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ חֲמוֹר אוֹ שׁוֹר אוֹ שֶׂה וגו׳. שְׁבוּעַת יְי תִּהְיֶה בֵּין שְׁנֵיהֶם. גְּנוּבָה. אִם גָּנוֹב יִגָּנֵב מֵעִמּוֹ. אֲבֵידָה. וְאִם. לְרַבּוֹת הָאֲבֵידָה. עַד כְּדוֹן כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. כְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. מָה אִם גְּנֵיבָה שֶׁקְּרוֹבָה לְאוֹנְסִין אַתְּ אָמַר מְשַׁלֵּם. אֲבֵידָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ קְרוֹבָה לְאוֹנְסִין לֹא כָל שֶׁכֵּן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It is written, *if a man give to his neighbor a donkey, or an ox, or a sheep*²⁵. 22:9. etc. *An oath before the Eternal shall be between the two of them*²⁶. 22:10.. Stolen, *if it was stolen stealing from him*²⁷. 22:11. The verse is intentionally misquoted; it is written וְאִם “and if”, not אִם “if”, as noted in the sequel.. Lost, *and if*, to include the lost one²⁸. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: Since you say that he pays for theft which is close to duress, for loss which is not close to duress not so much more²⁹94b, this is characterized not as a statement of R. Ismael but as a Galilean Amoraic statement in the spirit of R. Ismael. A different argument is in *Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin*16, (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 305).?

footnotes:
²⁵ Ex
²⁶ Ex
²⁷ Ex
²⁸ This is Rebbi Aqiba’s signature argument that all conjunctions which are not absolutely necessary imply an addition which can only be determined by tradition.
²⁹ In the Babli, Bava meṣi`a


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 8:1:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 8:1:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shevuot/r/8:1:7)

אֵין כָּתוּב בְּשׁוֹאֵל אֶלָּא שְׁבוּרָה. אֲבֵידָה וּגְנֵיבָה מְנַיִין. וְדִין הוּא. מָה אִם נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר וְהַשּׁוֹכֵר שֶׁאֵין מְשַׁלְּמִין שְׁבוּרָה וּמֵתָה מְשַׁלְּמִין גְּנֵיבָה וָאֲבֵידָה. שׁוֹאֵל שֶׁמְשַׁלֵּם שְׁבוּרָה וּמֵתָה אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיְּשַׁלֵּם אֲבֵידָה וּגְנֵיבָה. וְתַנֵּי עֲלָהּ. הֲרֵי זֶה קַל וָחוֹמֶר שֶׁאֵין עָלָיו תְּשׁוּבָה. שְׁבוּיָיה מְנַיִין. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן וְנִשְׁבַּר אוֹ מֵת וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן וּמֵת אוֹ נִשְׁבַּר. מַה לְהַלָּן שְׁבוּיָה עִמָּהֶן אַף כָּאן שְׁבוּיָה עִמָּהֶן. עַד כְּדוֹן כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. כְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל כְּרִבִּי נָתָן. רִבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר. אוֹ. לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַשְּׁבוּיָה. וּכְרִבִּי מֵאִיר דְּאָמַר. גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה בְמָקוֹם שֶׁבָּאת. מַה לְהַלָּן נִשְׁבָּעִין עַל הָאוֹנְסִין. אַף כָּאן נִשְׁבָּעִין עַל הָאוֹנְסִין. עוּד דְּרִבִּי נָתָן. דְּרִבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר. אוֹ מֵת. לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַשְּׁבוּיָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
For the borrower only the broken is written. From where loss and theft? It is logical. Since the paid keeper and the renter who do not pay for the broken or the dead have to pay for theft and loss, the borrower who pays for the broken or the dead certainly has to pay for theft and loss³⁰16, (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 306).. It was stated about this: This is an argument *de minore ad majus* which cannot be challenged. From where the abducted? It is said here, *it was broken or died*³¹. 22:13.; and it is said there, *it dies or was broken*²⁵. 22:9.. Since there the abducted was included, here also the abducted was included. So far following Rebbi Aqiba³² an argument of R. Aqiba but of R. Ismael [*Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin*16, (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 306)]. R. Aqiba’s argument is attributed here to R. Ismael.. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael follows Rebbi Nathan. Rebbi Nathan says, *or*, to include the abducted. Or following Rebbi Meïr who said, an equal cut at the place it comes from³³ and *died or was broken* defines an equal cut, since the abducted is mentioned in v. 9 it also is implied in v. 13.. Since there one swears for duress, also here one swears for duress. Still following Rebbi Nathan, for Rebbi Nathan said, *or it died*³¹. 22:13., to include the abducted one³⁴.

footnotes:
³⁰ This an argument of R. Ismael; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin
³¹ Ex
²⁵ Ex
³² This is not
³³ Chapter 4, Note 33. If broken or died
³¹ Ex
³⁴ A follower of R. Aqiba has the choice of arguing either following R. Meïr or R. Nathan.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 8:1:8
[Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 8:1:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shevuot/r/8:1:8)

רִבִּי יוּדָן בָּעֵי. טְעָנוֹ טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב שֶׁלְּאוֹנְסִין. אָמַר לוֹ. בָּא לֵיסְטֵיס מְזוּיָין וּנְטָלָהּ. מָהוּ שֶׁיְּשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל שֶׁלְּאוֹנְסִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אִין כֵּינִי נִיתְנֵי. שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר. דְּתַנֵּי. לֹא מָצִינוּ בְּנוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר שֶׁמְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל שֶׁלְּאוֹנְסִין. וְתַנֵּי עֲלָהּ. זֶהוּ קַל וָחוֹמֵר שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו תְּשׁוּבָה. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ כֵּן נִמְצֵאתָ אוֹמֵר. הֲרֵי זֶה קַל וָחוֹמֵר שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו תְּשׁוּבָה. דּוּ יְכִיל מֵימַר לֵיהּ. מָצִינוּ בְּנוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל. תֹּאמַר בְּשׁוֹאֵל שֶׁמְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל מִכָּל מָקוֹם. וְתַנֵּי עֲלָּהּ. הֲרֵי זֶה קַל וָחוֹמֵר שֶׁאֵין עָלָיו תְּשׁוּבָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Yudan asked: ³⁵. 22:8 is interpreted to mean that the keeper claimed the deposit was stolen but it was proven in court that he himself took it. The paid keeper or the renter must pay for stolen items (22:11); in general, a claim that the item was stolen by such a keeper is an agreement that he has to pay; even if the claim is false there is no reason for double restitution. But if the keeper claims that the item was abducted by force, he may swear to this fact to free himself from paying (v. 22:9). An argument is missing here, which is supplied in the Babli, *Bava meṣi`a*57b, *viz.*, that in an orderly commonwealth an armed robber will hide his weapons in public and only show them to his intended victim. This makes armed robbery an instance of theft (*Sanhedrin*8:3, Notes 44ff.). Therefore the question arises whether a false claim of armed robbery makes the paid keeper or the renter liable for double restitution. If he claimed the claim of a thief and duress? He told him, an armed robber came and took it; does he have to pay double restitution of duress? Rebbi Yose said, if it were so one should state “the paid keeper and the renter;” but we have stated: We do not find that the paid keeper and the renter pay double restitution of duress. On this we have stated, “this is an argument *de minore ad majus* which is questionable”³⁶ presented in the preceding paragraph where it was stated that the argument is *un* questionable. But if there are instances of theft where the paid keeper and the renter follow the rules of the unpaid keeper, the argument becomes invalid; it is more than questionable, it is shown to be false.. Rebbi Ḥanina said, if you say so, should you say, this is an argument *de minore ad majus* which is questionable³⁶ presented in the preceding paragraph where it was stated that the argument is *un* questionable. But if there are instances of theft where the paid keeper and the renter follow the rules of the unpaid keeper, the argument becomes invalid; it is more than questionable, it is shown to be false., for he can tell him, let us say that the borrower pays double restitution. On this it was stated, this is an argument *de minore ad majus* which cannot be challenged³⁷57a/b) disagrees and holds that in this case the paid keeper has to pay double restitution (Maimonides *Hilkhot Genevah*4:4)..

footnotes:
³⁵ The proviso that the keeper may have to pay double restitution is mentioned only for the unpaid keeper, where Ex
³⁶ The text is incorrect. The scribe first wrote correctly שאין עליו תשובה “which cannot be challenged” and then corrected it wrongly to the text given. The reference is to the argument de minore ad majus
³⁶ The text is incorrect. The scribe first wrote correctly שאין עליו תשובה “which cannot be challenged” and then corrected it wrongly to the text given. The reference is to the argument de minore ad majus
³⁷ Therefore the claim of armed robbery is not a claim of theft; there never can be double restitution by the paid keeper or the renter. The Babli (Bava meṣi`a


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 8:1:9
[Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 8:1:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shevuot/r/8:1:9)

אִתֲּ מַר. אִם בְּעָלָיו עִמּוֹ לֹא יְשַׁלֵּם. מָהוּ שֶׁיִּשְׁבַּע. רִבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר. נִשְׁבָּע. רִבִּי חֲנִינָה וְרִבִּי לָא תְּרֵיהוֹן אָמְרִין. אֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָה לְרִבִּי חֲנִינָה וּלְרִבִּי לָא. שֶׁבֶר שְׁבוּיָה וָמֵתָה שֶׁהֵן פְּטוּרִין בְּנוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר. וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל בִּבְעָלִין פָּטוּר שֶׁלֹּא בִבְעָלִים חַיָיב. אֲבֵידָה וּגְנֵיבָה שֶׁהֵן חַיָיבִין בְּנוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר. לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן בְּשׁוֹאֵל בִּבְעָלִין פָּטוּר שֶׁלֹּא בִבְעָלִים חַיָיב. מָאן דָּמַר. פְּשִׁיטָא שֶׁהוּא נִשְׁבָּע צְרִיכָה לֵיהּ שֶׁיְּשַׁלֵּם . רִבִּי חֲנִינָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוּדָן. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָה לְרִבִּי זֵירָא. שׁוֹאֵל שֶׁהֶחֱמִירָה הַתּוֹרָה עָלָיו בִּבְעָלִין פָּטוּר שֶׁלֹּא בִבְעָלִים חַיָיב. נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר שֶׁהִיקִילָה הַתּוֹרָה עָלָיו לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן בִּבְעָלִים פָּטוּר שֶׁלֹּא בִבְעָלִים חַיָיב. אִין תֵּימַר לִשְׁבוֹעָה אִיצְטְרִכָת לֵיהּ. נִיתְנֵי בְּנוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר. הֲוֵוי לָא צוֹרְכָה דְלָא לְתַשְׁלוּמִין. וְקַשְׁיָא עַל הָדָא דְרִבִּי זֵירָא. שׁוֹאֵל אִם בְּעָלָיו עִמּוֹ נִשְׁבָּע. אֵין בָּעָלָיו עִמּוֹ יְשַׁלֵּם. נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר אִם בְּעָלָיו עִמּוֹ נִשְׁבָּע. אֵין בָּעָלָיו עִמּוֹ לֹא יְשַׁלֵּם. שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם בֵּין שֶׁהַבְּעָלִין עִמּוֹ בֵּין שֶׁאֵין הַבְּעָלִים עִמּוֹ נִשְׁבָּע. אָמַרְתָּ. דְּבָרִים שֶׁהַשּׁוֹאֵל מְשַׁלֵּם נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר נִשְׁבָּע. דְּבָרִים שֶׁנּוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר נִשְׁבָּע שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם יְהֵא פָטוּר. דְּבָרִים שֶׁנּוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר מְשַׁלֵּם שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם נִשְׁבָּע. מָה אַתְּ מַתְנֵי בְּשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם. בְּשֶׁהַבְּעָלִים עִמּוֹ. וְאִית דְּבָעֵי. מָה אַתְּ מַתְנֵי בְּשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם וְנוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר. בֵּין שֶׁהַבְּעָלִים עִמּוֹ בֵּין שֶׁאֵין הַבְּעָלִים עִמּוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבִּין. עַל כָּל דְּבַר פֶּשַׁע. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. לֹא מָצִינוּ שֶׁהִשְׁוָות הַתּוֹרָה בִּגְנֵיבָה וַאֲבֵידָה בְשׁוֹאֵל. לָכֵן נְשַׁוֶּה שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם וְנוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר שֶׁבֶר שְׁבוּיָה וָמֵתָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was said, *if its owners were with him, he does not have to pay*³⁸. 22:14. If the borrower had asked not only for the use of an animal and/or agricultural or mechanical implements but also had asked their owner to help him in his work, then the disposition over animals or tools never was transferred to the borrower; in case the animal died or it and the tools broke or were taken by force the borrower does not have to pay. But if the authority over animal and/or tools was transferred, the borrower has to pay if anything happens to them.. Does he have to swear? Rebbi Ze`ira said, he swears. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi La both are saying, he does not swear³⁹. A *baraita* supports Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi La: “Breakage, abduction, and death for which he is not liable in the cases of the paid keeper and the renter⁴⁰. 22:9 excuses the paid keeper in the case of an unobserved accident but requires an oath that the keeper did never ever use the animal or object for himself (or the renter that he never overstepped the conditions of his lease)., and the borrower with the owner is not liable, without the owner is liable³¹. 22:13.; loss and theft where the paid keeper and the renter are liable, is it not that *a fortiori* the borrower be not liable with the owner but liable without the owner⁴¹?” For him who says it is obvious that he swears, should he not have to pay⁴² since it also applies to the case where the owner works with the borrower.? Rebbi Ḥanina⁴³ in the name of Rebbi Yudan: A *baraita* supports Rebbi Ze`ira. “The borrower, for whom the Torah was restrictive, with the owner is not liable, without the owner is liable; the paid keeper, for whom the Torah was lenient, *a fortiori* with the owner should not be liable, without the owner should be liable.⁴⁴” If you are saying, his problem was swearing, he should have stated “the paid keeper and the renter⁴⁵.” That means he only needs it for payment. It is difficult for Rebbi Ze`ira: the borrower swears if the owner was with him; if the owner was not with him he must pay. The unpaid keeper swears, whether the owner was with him or was not with him⁴⁶. 22:8.. You are saying that where the borrower pays the paid keeper swears⁴⁷. Where the paid keeper swears, the unpaid keeper should not be liable. Where the paid keeper pays, the unpaid keeper swears⁴⁸. What do you state about an unpaid keeper when the owner be with him⁴⁹? But some are asking, what do you state about an unpaid and a paid keeper, whether or not the owner be with him⁵⁰? Rebbi Abin said, *any word of criminality*¹. 22:8.⁵¹ are contradicted.. Rebbi Mana said, do we not find that the Torah treated loss and theft equally for the borrower? Therefore, we shall treat breakage, abduction, and death equally both for the unpaid and the paid keepers⁴² since it also applies to the case where the owner works with the borrower..

footnotes:
³⁸ Ex
³⁹ The Babli does not treat the question, which seems to be that even though the owner retains the power of disposition over his property, the borrower might have to swear that he was not in any way the cause of the accident.
⁴⁰ Since Ex
³¹ Ex
⁴¹ There is no verse referring to the responsibility of the borrower for cases of loss and theft but it cannot be less than that of breakage, etc. It cannot be more since the conclusion of a logical argument cannot be stronger than the premise.
⁴² Since the oath would absolve from payment, it is clear that R. Ze`ira holds that the borrower has to pay if he cannot swear. But this contradicts the argument of the baraita
⁴³ This is the late Amora R. Ḥinnena, not the early R. Ḥanina mentioned earlier.
⁴⁴ In fact his responsibility depends on whether there was a formal act of transfer of responsibility, Note 4.
⁴⁵ Since in general the paid keeper and the renter follow the same rules. But since the renter pays the owner for the use, in matters of payment there is reason to differentiate between the two.
⁴⁶ Ex
⁴⁷ If the loss was because of the unlawful actions of third persons.
⁴⁸ If the loss was because of the negligence of the keeper, when the object was lost, or probable negligence, when it was stolen.
⁴⁹ As stated before, if there was no formal transfer of responsibility, the unpaid keeper does not even swear.
⁵⁰ Since the distinction is made only for the borrower, we do not even know whether such a distinction is of any relevance for the other kinds of keepers.
¹ Ex
⁵¹ This explicitly excludes the distinction about the participation of the owner for paid and unpaid keeper; the previously quoted baraitot
⁴² Since the oath would absolve from payment, it is clear that R. Ze`ira holds that the borrower has to pay if he cannot swear. But this contradicts the argument of the baraita


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 8:1:10
[Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 8:1:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shevuot/r/8:1:10)

וּמַה טַעֲמוֹן דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי. עַל כָּל דְּבַר פֶּשַׁע. וּמַה מְקַיְימִין דְּבֵית הִלֵּל טַעֲמוֹן דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי. פֶּשַׁע. עַל כָּל דְּבַר פֶּשַׁע. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁשָּׁלַח בּוֹ יָד עַל יְדֵי שָׁלִיחַ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
⁵³3:13. There exists a full parallel in the Escurial ms. of *Neziqin*(E), reproduced above, and a not quite complete version published by R. H.Y.D. Azulai almost 200 years before the discovery of E; cf. *Bava meṣi`a*3:13, Note 89. The Leiden ms. there quotes only the first line followed by “etc.” This justifies considering the text of E as second source for the text here.
A short parallel to the discussion here is in the Babli, *Bava meṣi`a*44a. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? *Any word of criminality*¹. 22:8.⁵⁴3:13 states that according to the House of Shammai, a keeper becomes unfaithful and liable for any and all damages to the deposit if he thinks of appropriating it for his own use; according to the House of Hillel only the actual taking triggers liability. The House of Shammai include in “word of criminality” also unspoken words which would prevent the keeper from swearing to his innocence.. How do the House of Hillel explain the reason of the House of Shammai? “Criminality,” *any word of criminality*. Explain it if he appropriated it through an agent⁵⁵.

footnotes:
⁵³ The remainder of the Halakhah does not refer to Mishnah 8:1 but to Bava meṣi`a
¹ Ex
⁵⁴ Mishnah Bava meṣi`a
⁵⁵ Giving orders certainly involves words. If the order was criminal, the person giving the order can no longer swear truthfully that he did not take the deposit even if he himself never touched it.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 8:1:11
[Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 8:1:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shevuot/r/8:1:11)

רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָה בָעֵי. מָה אָמַר. יִטּוֹל. נָטַל. וְהָתַנֵּי רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. נִשְׁבְּרָה הֶחֱמִיצָה נוֹתֵן לוֹ דְּמֵי כּוּלָּהּ. כְּלוֹם הֶחֶמִיצָה לֹא מַחְמַת קִילְקוּלָהּ. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעְזָר. שְׁלִיחוּת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם אֵינוֹ חַיָיב עַד שֶׁיְּחַסֵּר. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בָּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. מָה אִיתְאֲמָרַת יְסַב. חִיסֵּר אוֹ אֲפִילוּ לֹא חִיסֵּר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. לֵית הָדָא שְׁאִילְתָּא דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָה יִטּוֹל נָטַל. אִין תֵּימַר לִיטּוֹל. אֲפִילוּ לֹא חִיסֵּר. אִין תֵּימַר. עַד שָׁעָה שֶׁיֶּחֱסוֹר. אִין תֵּימַר לִיטּוֹל. הֶחֱזִירָהּ בֵּין לִמְקוֹמוֹ בֵּין לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר פָּטוּר. אִין תֵּימַר נָטַל. הֶחֱזִירָהּ לִמְקוֹמָהּ פָּטוּר. לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר חַיָיב.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina asked, what was said, to take? Took⁵⁶3:13: “If he tilted the [wine] amphora and took a *quartarius*, and then it broke, [the unpaid keeper] pays only for a *quartarius*. If he lifted it and took a *quartarius*, and then it broke, he pays for all.” It is assumed that the amphora did not break because of any action of the keeper’s; then the unpaid keeper does not have to pay for the loss. But if he lifted the amphora with the intent of stealing from it, it becomes his property and he is liable for the entire value of amphora and contents. The question now is whether “took” means that he actually removed anything from the amphora’s contents or whether just moving the amphora with the intent of taking triggers full liability. Since in a sale of movables it is not the payment which transfers property rights and liabilities from seller to buyer but the buyer’s moving the item, it is not unreasonable to read “took” as “intent to take” since action of moving is decisive.? Did not Rebbi Hoshaia state, “it broke”; if it turned into vinegar he pays for everything⁵⁷? It turned into vinegar only because of its spoilage⁵⁸. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. “Grabbing⁵⁹. 22:7 and 10.” which was mentioned for the unpaid keeper makes him liable only if he diminished⁶⁰. Rebbi Samuel asked before Rebbi Abbahu: What has been said about taking? That he diminished or even if he did not diminish? He said to him, is that not Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina’s question, to take, took? If you say “to take”, even if he did not diminish⁶¹. If you say “took,” only when he diminished. If you say “to take”, if he returned it either to its former place or to another place he is not liable. If you say “took,” if he returned it to its former place he is not liable, to another place he is liable.

footnotes:
⁵⁶ This refers to the second part of Mishnah Bava meṣi`a
⁵⁷ R. Hoshaia qualifies the first statement. If he only tilted the amphora but did not move it from its place and it broke he only pays for what he took, to apply only to the case of breakage. If he tilted the amphora, took some wine, and then the wine turned into vinegar, he is liable to pay for all the wine since we say that tilting the wine and pouring from it caused the rest to turn into vinegar.
⁵⁸ Read with E: “the motion”.
⁵⁹ The biblical expression שָׁלַח יָדוֹ “sent his hand”, mentioned both in Ex
⁶⁰ Only if he actually took from it, not if the volume diminished by his handling the amphora for his own purposes.
⁶¹ But it lost volume after he handled it not for its own sake.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 8:1:12
[Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 8:1:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shevuot/r/8:1:12)

רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. נֶאֶמְרָה שְׁמִירָה בְשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם וְנֶאֶמְרָה שְׁמִירָה בְשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר. וְלֹא דַמְיָיא שְׁמִירָה שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרָה בְשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם לִשְׁמִירָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּנוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר. שְׁמִירָה שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרָה בְּשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם כֵּיוָן שֶׁשִּׁימֵּר כָּל צוֹרְכוֹ פָּטוּר. שְׁמִירָה שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרָה בְּשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר אֵין מְשַׁעֲרִין אוֹתוֹ אֶלָּא בְגוּפוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ אִם הָיָה רָאוּי לִשְׁמִירָה פָּטוּר. וְאִילֹא חַיָיב. אֵין אוֹמְרִין. אִלּוּ הָיָה אַחֵר שָׁם יָכוֹל לְהַצִּיל הִצִּיל פָּטוּר. שֶׁלֹּא הִצִּיל חַיָיב.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “Guarding” is mentioned for the unpaid keeper and “guarding” is mentioned for the paid keeper, but “guarding” mentioned for the unpaid keeper is not similar to “guarding” mentioned for the recipient of a fee. “Guarding” mentioned for the unpaid keeper; if he guarded it sufficiently he is not liable. For a paid keeper one estimates it only relative to his body. Therefore one judges him; if the guarding was appropriate he is not liable, otherwise he is liable⁶². One does not say, if another had been there, he could have saved⁶³. If he saved, he is not liable; if he did not save, he is liable⁶⁴.

footnotes:
⁶² Text of E: “Guarding mentioned for the paid keeper, even if he enclosed it in an iron wall one is not satisfied that he guarded. If it was in his power to save, he is liable. If it was not in his power to save, he is not liable.” This refers to the rule that the paid keeper is liable for theft and loss.
⁶³ Since the keeper is paid, it would have been the responsibility of the owner to hire a sufficient number of guards to watch over his property.
⁶⁴ This belongs before the preceding sentence; cf. Note 62.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 8:1:13
[Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 8:1:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shevuot/r/8:1:13)

רִבִּי לָעְזָר בְשֵׁם רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. נֶאֶמְרָה שְׁלִיחוּת יָד בְּשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם וְנֶאֶמְרָה שְׁלִיחוּת יָד בְּשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר. וְלֹא דַמְיָיא שְׁלִיחוּת יָד שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרָה בְשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם לִשְׁלִיחוּת יָד שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרָה בְּשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר. שְׁלִיחוּת יָד שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרָה בְשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם אֵינוֹ חַיָיב עַד שֶׁיִּמְשׁוֹךְ. שְׁלִיחוּת יָד שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרָה בְּשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִנִּיחַ מַקְלוֹ וְתַרְמִילוֹ עָלֶיהָ חַיָיב. שָׁמַע רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר נְהוֹרַאי וָמַר. אֲנִי אֵינִי מְקַבֵּל עָלַי אֶת הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה אֶלָּא אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה אֵינוֹ חַיָיב עַד שֶׁיִּמְשׁוֹךְ. רִבִּי אִמִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעְזָר וְתַנֵּי רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה כֵן. אִילּוּ נֶאֶמְרָה שְׁלִיחוּת יָד בְּשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ הָיִיתִי לָמֵד מִנּוֹשֵׁא שָׂכָר. מָה אִם נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר שֶׁהֶחֱמִירָה הַתּוֹרָה עָלָיו אֵינוֹ חַיָיב עַד שֶׁיִּמְשׁוֹךְ. שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם שֶׁהִיקִּילָה בוֹ הַתּוֹרָה אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא חַיָיב אֶלָּא עַד שֶׁיִּמְשׁוֹךְ. לְאֵי זֶה דָבָר נֶאֶמְרָה שְׁלִיחוּת יָד בְּשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ. לְהַחֲמִיר עַל נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר. כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִנִּיחַ מַקְלוֹ וְתַרְמִילוֹ עָלֶיהָ חַיָיב. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר. אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ כֵּן נִמְצֵאתָ לָמֵד עַל הַמְלַמֵּד לְהַחֲמִיר עָלָיו. דּוּ יְכִיל מֵימַר לֵיהּ. מָה אִם נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר שֶׁהֶחֱמִירָה בוֹ הַתּוֹרָה אֵינוֹ חַיָיב עַד שֶׁיִּמְשׁוֹךְ. שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם שֶׁהִיקִּילָה בוֹ הַתּוֹרָה אֲפִילוּ מָשַׁךְ יְהֵא פָטוּר. אֶלָּא כֵינִי. לֹא יֵאָמֵר שְׁלִיחוּת יָד שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרָה בְּשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ. הָיִיתִי לָמֵד מִשּׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם. מָה אִם שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם שֶׁהִיקִּלָה בוֹ הַתּוֹרָה אֵינוֹ חַיָיב עַד שֶׁיִּמְשׁוֹךְ. נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר שֶׁהֶחֱמִירָה בוֹ הַתּוֹרָה כֵּיוָן שֶׁמָּשַׁךְ חַיָיב. לְאֵי זֶה דָבָר נֶאֶמְרָה שְׁלִיחוּת יָד בְּנוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ. לְהַחֲמִיר עֲלֵיהּ. כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִנִּיחַ מַקְלוֹ וְתַרְמִילוֹ עָלֶיהָ חַיָיב.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: “Grabbing” is mentioned for the unpaid keeper and “grabbing” is mentioned for the paid keeper, but “grabbing” mentioned for the unpaid keeper is not comparable to “grabbing” mentioned for the paid keeper. “Grabbing” mentioned for the unpaid keeper does not make him liable unless he move it⁶⁵3:13.. “Grabbing” mentioned for the paid keeper, he is liable from the moment he puts his staff and his bag on it⁶⁶. 22:9–11) refers to animals, the example given refers to animals. If the keeper has to shepherd an animal, he cannot use it as his beast of burden even for the most minute load to his own benefit.. Rebbi Yose ben Nehorai heard this and said, I am not accepting this, but in any case he is not liable unless he move it⁶⁷. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: But did not Rebbi Hoshaia state it in this way? If “grabbing” had not been mentioned for the unpaid keeper as unnecessary⁶⁸, I would have inferred from the recipient of a fee. Since the recipient of a fee, with whom the Torah was strict, does not become liable unless he move it, it is only logical that an unpaid keeper, with whom the Torah was lenient, not be liable unless he move it. For which purpose was “grabbing” mentioned for the unpaid keeper since it was unnecessary? To be strict with the recipient of a fee; from the moment he puts his staff or his bag on it he is liable. Rebbi Yose said, if you say so, you infer about the premise to restrict it. For one could say to him, since the recipient of a fee, with whom the Torah was strict, does not become liable unless he move it, the unpaid keeper, with whom the Torah was lenient, should not be liable even if he move it. But it must be the following: “Grabbing” should not have been mentioned for the paid keeper as unnecessary, for I would have inferred from the unpaid keeper⁶⁸. Since the unpaid keeper, with whom the Torah was lenient, is not liable unless he move it, the recipient of a fee, with whom the Torah was strict, becomes liable when he moves it. For which purpose was “grabbing” mentioned for the recipient of a fee since it was unnecessary? To be strict; from the moment he puts his staff or his bag on it he is liable⁶⁹.

footnotes:
⁶⁵ As made clear in Mishnah Bava meṣi`a
⁶⁶ Since the paragraph about the paid keeper (Ex
⁶⁷ He requires an act of acquisition; he is liable only if he makes the animal move from the place where he put his bag on it.
⁶⁸ Since earlier we had established a strict order of liabilities, the unpaid keeper being liable less than the paid keeper or renter who in turn are liable less than the borrower, a mention of liability after “grabbing”, appropriating the deposit, for the unpaid keeper would automatically imply the same for the paid keeper and the renter. In the first version, the argument is upside down as R. Yose points out.
⁶⁸ Since earlier we had established a strict order of liabilities, the unpaid keeper being liable less than the paid keeper or renter who in turn are liable less than the borrower, a mention of liability after “grabbing”, appropriating the deposit, for the unpaid keeper would automatically imply the same for the paid keeper and the renter. In the first version, the argument is upside down as R. Yose points out.
⁶⁹ Since the mention of “grabbing” in v. 10 is unnecessary if it meant the same as in v. 7, it follows that the rules of liability for the paid keeper are more strict than those for the unpaid keeper. The detail, in what these rules are more strict, is not mentioned in the biblical text; it must be left to the traditional understanding of these rules.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 8:2:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 8:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shevuot/r/8:2:1)

**משנה:** אָמַר לְשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם אֵיכָן שׁוֹרִי אָמַר לוֹ מֵת וְהוּא שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה אוֹ נִגְנַב אוֹ אָבַד. נִשְׁבַּר וְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה אוֹ נִגְנַב אוֹ אָבַד. נִשְׁבָּה וְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ נִשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִגְנַב אוֹ אָבַד. נִגְנַב וְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ נִשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה אוֹ אָבַד. אָבַד וְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ נִשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה אוֹ נִגְנַב. מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אֲנִי וְאָמַר אָמֵן פָּטוּר:

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** He said to the unpaid keeper, “where is my ox?” He told him, “it died,” but it broke, or was abducted, or stolen, or lost⁷⁰. 22:6,9, where the unpaid keeper swears but does not have to pay. Breakage refers to vessels, not to animals; it is included since it appears in the verse.. “It broke,” but it died, or was abducted, or stolen, or lost. “”It was abducted,” but it died, or broke, or was stolen, or lost. “It was stolen,” but it died, or broke, or was abducted, or lost. “It was lost,” but it died, or broke, or was abducted, or stolen. “I want you to swear;” he answered “Amen”. He is not liable⁷¹.

footnotes:
⁷⁰ These are the cases enumerated in Ex
⁷¹ Even though he swore under a false category, since he swore correctly to the fact that he does not have to pay he is not liable for the sacrifice required for a false oath.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 8:2:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 8:2:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shevuot/r/8:2:2)

**הלכה:** אָמַר לְשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם כול׳. רַב אָמַר. פָּטוּר מִשְּׁבוּעַת פִּיקָּדוֹן וְחַיָיב מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּעַת בִּיטּוּי. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מֵאַחַר שֶׁמִּצְוָה לְהַפִּיסוֹ אֵינוֹ חַיָיב מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּעַת בִּיטּוּי. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרַב אֵינוֹ מְצֻוֶּה לְהַפִּיסוֹ. מְפַיְיסוֹ עַל הָאֱמֶת. אֵינוֹ מְפַיְיסוֹ עַל הַשֶׁקֶר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “He said to the unpaid keeper,” etc. ⁷⁷3:10, Notes 190–192. Rav said, he is not liable for a keeper’s oath but is liable because of a blurted oath. Rebbi Joḥanan said, since it is a religious duty to appease him, he is not liable because of a blurted oath. In Rav’s opinion, is there no religious duty to appease him? One appeases with truthful statements, not with lies.

footnotes:
⁷⁷ This paragraph is from Sanhedrin


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 8:2:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 8:2:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shevuot/r/8:2:3)

רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בָּעֵי. שְׁבוּעַת סוֹטָה מָהוּ שֶׁיְּהוּ חַיָיבִין מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּעַת בִּיטּוּי. מָה נָן קַיָימִין. אִם בְּשׁוֹגֶגֶת בָּעֲבֵירָה וּבִשְׁבוּעָה אֵין כָּאן סוֹטָה. אִם בָּמֵזִידָה בָּעֲבֵירָה וּבִשְׁבוּעָה אֵין כָּאן קָרְבָּן. אַתְיָא דְרַב כְּרִבִּי עֳקִיבָה. וְאִין יִסְבּוֹר רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל כְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אַתְיָא הִיא דְרִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר. אָמֵן שֶׁלֹּא נִטְמֵאתִי. אָמֵן שֶׁלֹּא אַטַּמֵּא. וְאַתְּ מַשְׁכַּח מַקְשִׁיָיא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Joḥanan asked: May the oath of a deviant woman⁷⁸. 5:22. be liable for a blurted oath? Where do we hold? If she is in error in sin and oath she is not deviant⁷⁹. If she is intentional in sin and error there is no sacrifice⁸⁰. Rav follows Rebbi Aqiba⁸¹. 5:4) referring to past events as well as future ones but R. Ismael allows only future- directed blurted oaths. Rav (Chapter 3 Note 7) admits only past-directed blurted oaths; as just shown this is not possible in the case of the deviant woman.. If Rebbi Ismael⁸². 5:22 that the first one is past directed, the second future directed. R. Ismael might agree that this is a special case where a biblical verse also requires the inclusion of references to past events. Then the question of R. Joḥanan might make sense since the possibility of an oath by a deviant woman depends on past events but the designation as blurted oath must depend on future happenings, not covered by the previous argument. would argue like Rebbi Meïr it would follow, since Rebbi Meïr said⁸³3:1.: “Amen that I was not defiled, Amen that I shall not be defiled.” But you may question this⁸⁴.

footnotes:
⁷⁸ The suspected adulteress who is put under oath by the Cohen, Num
⁷⁹ If she slept with a man thinking it was her husband and swears while in this belief, she is not forbidden to her husband and not deviant.
⁸⁰ There is no sacrifice for an intentional false oath.
⁸¹ This refers to Halakhah 3:1. R. Aqiba admits the possibility of sacrifices for inadvertent blurted oaths (Lev
⁸² R. Meïr explains the repetition “Amen, Amen” in Num
⁸³ Mishnah Soṭah
⁸⁴ Since practice would follow neither R. Ismael nor R. Meïr there seems to be no point for R. Joḥanan’s question.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 8:3:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 8:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shevuot/r/8:3:1)

**משנה:** אֵיכָן שׁוֹרִי אָמַר לוֹ אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ. מָה אַתָּה שָׂח וְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ נִשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה אוֹ נִגְנַב אוֹ אָבַד. מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אֲנִי וְאָמַר אָמֵן פָּטוּר. אֵיכָן שׁוֹרִי אָמַר לוֹ אָבַד. מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אֲנִי וְאָמַר אָמֵן וְהָעֵדִים מְעִידִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁאֲכָלוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַקֶּרֶן. הוֹדָה מֵעַצְמוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וְחוֹמֶשׁ וְאָשָׁם. אֵיכָן שׁוֹרִי אָמַר לוֹ נִגְנַב. מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אֲנִי וְאָמַר אָמֵן וְהָעֵדִים מְעִידִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁגְּנָבוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל. הוֹדָה מֵעַצְמוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וְחוֹמֶשׁ וְאָשָׁם: אָמַר לְאֶחָד בַּשּׁוּק אֵיכָן שׁוֹרִי שֶׁגָּנַבְתָּ וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא גָנַבְתִּי וְהָעֵדִים מְעִידִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁגְּנָבוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל. טָבַח וּמָכַר מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. רָאָה עֵדִים שֶׁמְּמַשְׁמְשִׁין וּבָאִין אָמַר גָּנַבְתִּי אֲבָל לֹא טָבַחְתִּי וְלֹא מָכַרְתִּי אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא קֶרֶן:

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** “Where is my ox?” He told him, “I do not know.” “What are you telling?” But if had died, or broke, or was abducted, or stolen, or lost. “I want you to swear;” he answered “Amen”. He is not liable⁷¹.
“Where is my ox?” He told him, “it was lost.” “I want you to swear;” he answered “Amen”. Witnesses testify that he ate it: he has to pay its value⁷². If he confessed himself he pays the value, and a fifth, and a reparation sacrifice⁷³. 5:20–25..
“Where is my ox?” He told him, “it was stolen.” “I want you to swear;” he answered “Amen”. Witnesses testify that he stole it: he has to pay double restitution⁷⁴. 22:8.. If he confessed himself he pays the value, and a fifth, and a reparation sacrifice⁷³. 5:20–25..
He said to a person on the market, “where is my ox which you stole?” This one says, “I did not steal,” but witnesses testify that he stole it: he has to pay double restitution⁷⁴. 22:8.. If he slaughtered or sold it, he pays quadruple or quintuple restitution⁷⁵. 21:37.. If he saw that witnesses appeared and said, “I stole but did neither slaughter nor sell,” he only pays its value⁷⁶.

footnotes:
⁷¹ Even though he swore under a false category, since he swore correctly to the fact that he does not have to pay he is not liable for the sacrifice required for a false oath.
⁷² He has to pay restitution. But since he did not claim falsely that it was stolen, there is no fine. In general there is no fine imposed if the culprit confesses before witnesses testify against him.
⁷³ Following Lev
⁷⁴ This is not the double restitution of the common thief (since the owner himself handed the animal or vessel over to him) but the double restitution required by Ex
⁷³ Following Lev
⁷⁴ This is not the double restitution of the common thief (since the owner himself handed the animal or vessel over to him) but the double restitution required by Ex
⁷⁵ Ex
⁷⁶ He did not swear; there is no additional fifth and sacrifice. There is no fine for the confessed thief; therefore he pays only the value even though he falsely claimed not to have slaughtered or sold the animal.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 8:3:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 8:3:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shevuot/r/8:3:2)

**הלכה:** אָמַר לַשּׁוֹאֵל. אֵיכָן שׁוֹרִי כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וְתַנֵּי כֵן. טְעָנוֹ טַעֲנַת אָבוּד וְנִשְׁבָּע לוֹ וְהוֹדָה. בֵּין עַד שֶׁלֹּא בָאוּ הָעֵדִים בֵּין מִשֶׁבָּאוּ הָעֵדִים מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וָחוֹמֶשׁ וְאָשָׁם. טְעָנוֹ טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב וְנִשְׁבָּע לוֹ וְהוֹדָה. עַד שֶׁלֹּא בָאוּ עֵדִים מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וָחוֹמֶשׁ וְאָשָׁם. וְאִם מִשֶׁבָּאוּ עֵדִים מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל וְאָשָׁם וְחוּמְשׁוֹ עוֹלֶה לוֹ מִתּוֹךְ כְּפֵילוֹ. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב. אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרִבִּי יַעֲקֹב. אֵיכָן מָצִינוּ אָשָׁם בְּלֹא חוֹמֶשׁ. אָמַר לָהֶן. אִם נִשְׁבָּע וְנִשְׁבָּע וְנִשְׁבָּע הֲרֵי מָצִינוּ אָשָׁם בְּלֹא חוֹמֶשׁ. וְרַבָּנִין אָמְרִין. לַקֶּרֶן חוֹמְשִׁין אֵין לִשְׁבוּעוֹת חוֹמְשִׁין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “He said to the borrower, “where is my ox,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it was stated thus⁸⁷65a/b, Tosephta *Bava qamma*8:8.: “He⁸⁸ claimed a claim of loss, swore, and confessed. Whether before witnesses came or after witnesses came he pays the value, a fifth, and a reparation sacrifice⁷³. 5:20–25.. If he claimed a claim of thief, swore, and confessed before witnesses came he pays the value, a fifth, and a reparation sacrifice. When after witnesses came he pays double restitution⁷⁴. 22:8. and a reparation sacrifice; the fifth is counted for him in the double payment, the words of Rebbi Jacob. They said to Rebbi Jacob, where do we find a reparation sacrifice without fifth? He said to them, if he swore, and swore, and swore, we find a reparation sacrifice without fifth. But the rabbis say, there is a fifth for the capital; there is no fifth for oaths⁸⁹.”

footnotes:
⁸⁷ Bava qamma
⁸⁸ A paid keeper or renter who pays for stolen and lost deposits but pays no double restitution if he in fact stole it but claims that it was lost.
⁷³ Following Lev
⁷⁴ This is not the double restitution of the common thief (since the owner himself handed the animal or vessel over to him) but the double restitution required by Ex
⁸⁹ Rebbi Jacob holds that if he swore falsely he has to pay the fifth of the value of the deposit but if he then repeats the false oath there is no underlying money involved and therefore no money due. The rabbis hold that double restitution is only due from the thief after conviction by the court. For payment after confession neither fifth nor a sacrifice are due.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 8:3:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 8:3:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shevuot/r/8:3:3)

דָּבָר אַחֵר. וְשִׁלַּם אוֹתוֹ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ וַחֲמִישִׁתָו יוֹסֵף עָלָיו. אָמַר רִבִּי זֵירָא. וְתַנֵּי כֵן. טְעָנוֹ טַעֲנַת אָבוּד וְנִשְׁבָּע לוֹ וְהִפְרִישׁ קָרְבָּן. מֵאֵילּוּ שֶׁאִילּוּ הוֹדָה מִשֶּׁבְּאוּ עֵדִים קִידֵּשׁ אַף כָּאן קִידֵּשׁ. טְעָנוֹ טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב וְנִשְׁבָּע לוֹ וְהִפְרִישׁ קָרְבָּן. מֵאַחַר שֶׁאִילּוּ הוֹדָה מִשֶּׁבְּאוּ עֵדִים לֹא קִידֵּשׁ אַף כָּאן לֹא קִידֵּשׁ. וּכְרִבִּי יַעֲקֹב קִידֵּשׁ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Another explanation: *He shall pay the whole worth and add its fifths to it*⁹⁰. 5:24. The plural “fifths” implies that for repeated false oaths about the same subject additional fifths are due (*Sifra Ḥovah*, *Wayyiqra II, Parašah*13:12; Babli *Bava qamma*103b, *Bava meṣi`a*54b). This disproves R. Jacob’s statement.. Rebbi Ze`ira said, it was stated thus: “He claimed a claim of loss, swore, and dedicated a sacrifice. Since if he confessed after witnesses came it would be sanctified, it is sanctified here. He claimed a claim of thief, swore, and dedicated a sacrifice. Since if he confessed after witnesses came it would not be sanctified⁹¹, it is not sanctified here, but following Rebbi Jacob it would be sanctified.”

footnotes:
⁹⁰ Lev
⁹¹ A reparation offering is obligatory; it cannot be voluntary. Since the rabbis hold that double restitution excludes oath and confession, no sacrifice is possible even in the case where the verse demands double restitution in any case, as for the paid keeper who falsely claimed that a thief had stolen the item (Note 74).


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 8:3:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 8:3:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shevuot/r/8:3:4)

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הַטּוֹעֵן אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל. טָבַח וּמָכַר מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. תַּמָּן אָמְרֵי. מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. רִבִּי פְדָת בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. תַּנֵּיי תַמַּן וּמְסַיְיעִין לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אֵיכָן שׁוֹרִי. אָמַר לוֹ. אָבַד. מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אֲנִי. וְאָמַר אָמֵן. וְהָעֵדִים מְעִידִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁאֲכָלוֹ. מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַקֶּרֶן. הוֹדָה מֵעַצְמוֹ. מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וְחוֹמֶשׁ וְאָשָׁם. וְיֵשׁ אֲכִילָה בְלֹא טְבִיחָה. אָמַר רִבִּי חַגַּיי. תִּפְתָּר בְּשֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ אַחֵר. וֵיי דָא אָמְרָה דָא. אָמַר לְאֶחָד בַּשּׁוּק. אֵיכָן שׁוֹרִי שֶׁגָּנַבְתָּ. וְהוּא אוֹמֵר. לֹא גָנַבְתִּי. מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אֲנִי. וְאָמַר אָמֵן. פָּטוּר. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאָמַר לְאֶחָד מִן הַשּׁוּק. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לְאֶחָד מִן הַשּׁוֹמְרִין חַיָיב. מַתְנִיתָא בְּשֶׁאֲכָלוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִשְׁבָּע לוֹ. מִן מָה דָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֶׁנִּשְׁבָּע לוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ אֲכָלוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody claims against another a claim of thief he pays double restitution. If he slaughtered or sold, he pays⁹² quadruple or quintuple restitution. There, they say, he pays quadruple or quintuple restitution⁹³106b.. Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: There⁹⁴ we state and it supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “‘Where is my ox?’ He told him, ‘it was lost.’ ‘I want you to swear;’ he answered ‘Amen’. Witnesses testify that he ate it; he has to pay its value⁷². If he confessed himself he pays the value, and a fifth, and a reparation sacrifice⁷³. 5:20–25..” Is there eating without slaughtering⁹⁵? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, explain it if another slaughtered⁹⁶71a, emphatically disagrees, in the name of R. Joḥanan. Since the verse brackets slaughter and sale together and a sale is impossible without a third party, so slaughter by a third party acting on his orders also triggers the liability of the thief.. And the following said so: He said to one in the market place, “where is my ox which you stole?” He says, “I did not steal.” “I want you to swear,” and he says “Amen.” He is (not)⁹⁷ liable. Because he is one in the market place. But if he said it to one of the keepers, that one would be liable⁹⁸. The *baraita* when he ate it and then swore. What Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he swore and after that ate it⁹⁹.

footnotes:
⁹² The following implies that one has to read “does not pay.”
⁹³ In Babylonia they transmit R. Joḥanan’s saying as requiring multiple restitution; Babli Bava qamma
⁹⁴ Mishnah 4.
⁷² He has to pay restitution. But since he did not claim falsely that it was stolen, there is no fine. In general there is no fine imposed if the culprit confesses before witnesses testify against him.
⁷³ Following Lev
⁹⁵ The Mishnah does not require multiple restitution for eating the animal entrusted to him. This proves that there is no quadruple or quintuple restitution and double restitution only if the keeper claims that it was stolen from him.
⁹⁶ The Babli, Bava qamma
⁹⁷ This has to read “is liable.”
⁹⁸ This has to read “would not be liable (for quadruple or quintuple restitution).”
⁹⁹ If the unpaid keeper had sworn or the paid keeper had paid, the animal became his and if he slaughtered afterwards there can be no additional restitution.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 8:3:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 8:3:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shevuot/r/8:3:5)

אָמַר לְנוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הַטּוֹעֵן לַחֲבֵירוֹ טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב בַּאֲבֵידָה חַיָיב. אֵיכָן אֲבֵידָתִי. אָמַר לוֹ. נִגְנְבָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הַטּוֹעֵן לַחֲבֵירוֹ טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב אֵינוֹ חַיָיב אֶלָּא לְאַחַר שְׁבוּעָה. וּמַאי טַעֲמָא. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן שְׁלִיחוּת יָד. וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן שְׁלִיחוּת יָד. מַה שְׁלִיחוּת יָד שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרָה לְהַלָּן אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְאַחַר הַשְּׁבוּעָה. אַף שְׁלִיחוּת יָד שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרָה כָּאן אֵינוֹ חַיָיב אֶלָּא לְאַחַר הַשְּׁבוּעָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. טְעָנוֹ טַעֲנַת אָבוּד וְנִשְׁבָּע לוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ טְעָנוֹ טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב. פָּטוּר. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בָּעֵי. שְׁבוּעַת טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב מָהוּ שְׁיְּהוּ חַיָיבִין בָּהּ מִשׁוּם שְׁבוּעַת בִּיטּוּי. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. תַּמָּן אָמַר. טְעָנוֹ טַעֲנַת אָבוּד וְנִשְׁבָּע לוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ טְעָנוֹ טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב פָּטוּר. וָכָא אָמַר אָכֵין. תַּמָּן פְּשִׁיטָה לֵיהּ וָכָא צְרִיכָה לֵיהּ. מָה אִיצְטְרִיכַת לֵיהּ חָזִי וּפְשָׁטָהּ. רִבִּי חִיָיה בַּר יוֹסֵף אָמַר. הַטּוֹעֵן לַחֲבֵירוֹ טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב אֵינוֹ חַיָיב עַד שֶׁיִּכְפּוֹר בְּבֵית דִּין. מַה נָן קַיָימִין. אִם בָּהוּא דְקָאִים וְחַיָיב לְחַבְרֵיהּ שְׁבוּעָה אֲפִילוּ נִשְׁבָּע חוּץ לְבֵית דִּין חַיָיב. אֶלָּא כִי נָן קַיָימִין בָּהוּא דַחֲמִי לוֹן אָזְלִין. בְּעוֹן מִישְׁבְּעוֹנֵיהּ וְהוּא קָפַץ וּמִשְׁתְּבָע. רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. בְּעוֹמֶדֶת עַל אָבוּסוֹ. רִבִּי זֵירָא בָעֵי. מָה אִיתְאֲמָרַת. בְּעוֹמֶדֶת אוֹ אֲפִילוּ עוֹמֶדֶת. וְאִין תֵּימַר אֲפִילוּ עוֹמֶדֶת. הִיא הָדָא הִיא הָדָא. אִין תֵּימַר בְּעוֹמֶדֶת. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. תַּמָּן אָמַר. טְעָנוֹ טַעֲנַת אָבוּד וְנִשְׁבָּע לוֹ וְהִפְרִישׁ קָרְבָּן וְאַחַר כָּךְ טְעָנוֹ טַעֲנַת אוֹנֶס פָּטוּר. וְהָכָא אַתָּ מַר הָכֵין. אָמַר רִבִּי לָא. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא שֶׁהִיא בְּיוֹצֵא וִידּוּייוֹ בִשְׁבוּעָה. מַקְשִׁיָיא עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי זֵירָא. אָמַר לוֹ. אֵיכָן שׁוֹרִי. אָמַר לוֹ. נִגְנַב. מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אֲנִי. וְאָמַר אָמֵן. וְהָעֵדִים מְעִידִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁגְּנָבוֹ. מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל. הוֹדָה מֵעַצְמוֹ. מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וְחוֹמֶשׁ וְאָשָׁם. וְהָכָא כֵּיוָן שֶׁמָּשַׁךְ בְּטוֹעֲנוֹ טַעֲנַת אָבוּד. מִיכָּן וָאֵילַךְ בְּטוֹעֲנוֹ טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב וּפָטוּר. תִּיפְתָּר בְּשֶׁנִּשְׁבָּע לוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ טְבָחוֹ. תַּלְמִידוֹי דְרִבִּי חִיָיה בַּר לוּלְיָינִי אָמְרֵי. תִּיפְתָּר בְּשֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ רָבוּץ. וְיֵשׁ טְבִיחָה בְלֹא מְכִירָה. כְּסוּמָּכוֹס דְּאָמַר. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין גְּנֵיבָה יֵשׁ טְבִיחָה וּמְכִירָה. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. בְּשֶׁלֹּא בָאוּ עֵידֵי גְנֵיבָה. אֲבָל אִם בָּאוּ עֵידֵי טְבִיחָה חַיָיב.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“He said to the recipient of a fee,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one who claims before his neighbor a claim of thief in a case of loss is liable¹⁰⁰. 22:1–3); by picking it up he automatically becomes an unpaid keeper. If the owner hears that the object was found by that person and comes to reclaim it, if the finder had honestly told him that he lost it again he would not be liable since he was an unpaid keeper. But if he falsely claimed that it was stolen, he is liable for double restitution required for any false claim of theft (*Ex*. 22:8).. “Where is my lost object?” He told him, “it was stolen.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, one who claims before his neighbor a claim of thief is liable only after an oath. What is the reason? It is said here “grabbing” and it says there “grabbing.” Since “grabbing” mentioned there only applies after an oath, so also “grabbing” mentioned here only applies after an oath¹⁰¹. 22:7 regarding court procedures involving an oath for an unpaid keeper who falsely claims that the object was stolen and has to pay double restitution. It also is mentioned in v. 10 regarding the paid keeper who for an actually stolen object has to pay its value (v. 11) but double restitution for a false claim of theft for which he swore falsely.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one who claims a claim of loss, swore to him, and afterwards claimed a claim of thief is not liable¹⁰²107b. Since he discharged his obligations towards the owner by his oath, the second claim is irrelevant.. Rebbi Joḥanan asked: May one be liable for a blurted oath in case of an oath regarding a claim of thief¹⁰³. 5:4?? The argument of Rebbi Joḥanan seems to be inverted. There he said, if he claimed a claim of loss, swore to him, and afterwards claimed a claim of thief is not liable. And here he says so¹⁰⁴? There it is obvious to him, here it is problematic for him¹⁰⁵. What is problematic for him? He saw and found it simple¹⁰⁶. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph said¹⁰⁷106b/107a. He notes that *Ex*. 22:8 in general is read as applying to court proceedings (6:1 Note 1, *Bava meṣi`a*1:1 Note 9) expressing the general conditions when an oath can be imposed. Therefore the double restitution imposed at the end of the verse has to be in such a proceeding, and double restitution imposed on the paid keeper or renter is imposed on the same basis by the argument of Note 101., one who claims before his neighbor a claim of thief is liable only after he denied in court. Where do we hold? If about him who already owes an oath¹⁰⁸ to his neighbor, even if he was swearing out of court he is liable. But we must hold about him who saw them coming. They wanted to make him swear but he jumped in and swore¹⁰⁹. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When it was standing at his feeding trough¹¹⁰107b.. Rebbi Ze`ira asked: how was it said? “If it was standing” or “even if it was standing”¹¹¹.)? If you say “even if it was standing,” it makes no difference¹¹². If you say “if it was standing,” then the argument of Rebbi Joḥanan is inverted. There, he said, if he claimed before him a claim of loss, had been swearing to him, selected a sacrifice¹¹³, and then claimed a claim of duress, he is not liable¹¹⁴. But here you are saying so? Rebbi La said, there is a difference since he absolved himself of confession by the oath¹⁰²107b. Since he discharged his obligations towards the owner by his oath, the second claim is irrelevant.. They objected to the opinion of Rebbi Ze`ira: “‘Where is my ox?’ He told him, ‘it was stolen.’ ‘I want you to swear;’ he answered ‘Amen’. Witnesses testify that he stole it: he has to pay double restitution⁷⁴. 22:8.. If he confessed himself he pays the value, and a fifth, and a reparation sacrifice⁷³. 5:20–25..” But here when he moved it¹¹⁵ by claiming that it was lost. Afterwards he claimed a claim of thief and is not liable¹⁰²107b. Since he discharged his obligations towards the owner by his oath, the second claim is irrelevant.. Explain it that he swore to him but slaughtered it afterwards¹¹⁶. The students of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Julianus say, explain it that he slaughtered it when it was lying down¹¹⁷. Is there slaughter without sale¹¹⁸? Following Symmachos who said, there can be slaughter and sale without theft¹¹⁹75b) he states that if there were witnesses for the theft whose testimony stood up and witnesses for slaughter or sale which were found perjured, the accused has to pay double restitution for theft and the perjurers double or triple restitution for the false accusation, showing that slaughter or sale can be separated from theft. (The thief of cattle who sells his booty has to pay five times, not seven.). Samuel said, if there came no witnesses of the theft, but there came witnesses of the slaughter; he is liable¹²⁰.

footnotes:
¹⁰⁰ A person who finds a lost object with distinguishing marks by which the owner can convincingly describe it is obligated to return it to its owner (Deut
¹⁰¹ “Grabbing” is mentioned in Ex
¹⁰² Babli Bava qamma
¹⁰³ If he swears for the second claim (truly or falsely), is this a blurted oath in the meaning of Lev
¹⁰⁴ How can he say he is not liable and then make him liable for a blurted oath?
¹⁰⁵ He is not liable for an oath about a deposit; this implies nothing for the rules of blurted oaths.
¹⁰⁶ The previous answer is incorrect. He saw that the answer is simple: since the second oath is not required it would be a blurted oath if true and a false oath if false, sinful in any case.
¹⁰⁷ Babli Bava qamma
¹⁰⁸ By court order.
¹⁰⁹ Before there was any court proceeding. This oath does not protect him from having to swear another oath imposed by the court; therefore it does not trigger double restitution.
¹¹⁰ Babli Bava qamma
¹¹¹ What kind of testimony will make him pay double restitution? Since he is a keeper and the animal was delivered to him, it needs an act of acquisition to be stolen and then this has to be classified as robbery, rather than as theft. If the animal was standing at a feeding trough on his property,there it belongs. If he claims that it was stolen, he is liable for double restitution. If he took it as his property, he is a robber, the animal is his property, he has to pay for it, but any oath will be irrelevant since it would not be about the other’s property. But if the formulation was “even if it was standing at his feeding trough” then it would apply even if he took it by robbery. (Rashi in Bava qamma
¹¹² Whether he took the animal before he swore or after.
¹¹³ For his false oath.
¹¹⁴ For double restitution, since by the oath and payment he acquired the animal and the second claim is baseless; cf. Note 102.
¹⁰² Babli Bava qamma
⁷⁴ This is not the double restitution of the common thief (since the owner himself handed the animal or vessel over to him) but the double restitution required by Ex
⁷³ Following Lev
¹¹⁵ He did not move it but acquired it by the oath as if he had moved it after buying.
¹⁰² Babli Bava qamma
¹¹⁶ When he already had acquired the animal by his oath.
¹¹⁷ He was an honest keeper beforehand; the animal was still its owner’s property. He did not move the animal with the intent of appropriating it; the animal was acquired by slaughter. This argument presupposes that quadruple or quintuple restitution applies only for slaughter or sale after theft.
¹¹⁸ It should read: “Is there restitution for slaughter without prior theft”?
¹¹⁹ He holds that quadruple or quintuple restitution is independent of restitution for theft; theft has not to be proven, only illegal slaughter. In the Babli (Bava qamma
¹²⁰ He holds that while quadruple or quintuple restitution applies only to stolen animals, the theft has not to be proven in court if there are witnesses for illegal slaughter.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 8:3:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 8:3:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shevuot/r/8:3:6)

רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. רָאָה עֵידֵי גְנֵיבָה בָּאִין וְאָמַר. גָּנַבְתִּי. מֵאַחַר שֶׁאֵין בְּהוֹדָיָיתוֹ מַמָּשׁ פָּטוּר. רָאָה עֵידֵי טְבִיחָה בָּאִין וְאָמַר. טָבַחְתִּי. מֵאַחַר שֶׁאֵין (ס״א שֶׁיֵּשׁ) בְּהוֹדָיָיתוֹ מַמָּשׁ פָּטוּר (ס״א חַיָיב). רִבִּי זֵירָא בָעֵי. רָאָה עֵידֵי אוּנְסִין בָּאִין וְאָמַר. אָנַסְתִּי. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. מַתְנִיתָה כְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּאָמַר. עִיקָּר תְּבִיעָה קְנָס. כְּמִי שֶׁאֵין בְּהוֹדָיָיתוֹ מַמָּשׁ וּפָטוּר. וְרַבָּנִין אָמְרִין. אֵין עִיקָּר תְּבִיעָה קְנָס. כְּמִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּהוֹדָיָיתוֹ מַמָּשׁ וְחַיָיב.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he saw that witnesses to the theft were approaching and he said “I stole,” since his confession is inoperative he is not liable¹²¹. If he saw that witnesses to the slaughter were approaching and he said “I slaughtered,” since his confession is (another opinion: not)¹²² operative¹²³ he is not liable (another opinion: is liable). Rebbi Ze`ira asked: that witnesses to rape were approaching and he said “I raped”? Rebbi Ḥanina⁴³ said, the Mishnah follows Rebbi Simeon who said the main claim is for the fine¹²⁴. Therefore his confession is inoperative and he is not liable¹²¹. But the rabbis say, the main claim is not for the fine. Therefore his confession is operative¹²⁵ and he is liable¹²¹.

footnotes:
¹²¹ In this entire paragraph, “liable” has to be replaced by “not liable” and vice versa. The principle that a confession frees a person from a fine is valid only if the confession preceded the appearance of witnesses since witnesses make his confession unnecessary. If the thief waits until the injured party has found witnesses he has to pay double restitution: the value of the object which he took as a debt and the double as a fine.
¹²² Copyist’s notes; the copyist’s correction of the incorrect text from which he copied.
¹²³ It is assumed that the witnesses have no knowledge about how he acquired the animal which he slaughtered; he could have bought it from the owner or from a thief. The person who bought from the thief cannot be sued for multiple restitution. Therefore his confession is as irrelevant as is the witnesses’ testimony; there is no place for any liability. If he also admits to having stolen the animal he liquidates his debt by paying its value.
⁴³ This is the late Amora R. Ḥinnena, not the early R. Ḥanina mentioned earlier.
¹²⁴ Mishnah 5:6, Note 79.
¹²¹ In this entire paragraph, “liable” has to be replaced by “not liable” and vice versa. The principle that a confession frees a person from a fine is valid only if the confession preceded the appearance of witnesses since witnesses make his confession unnecessary. If the thief waits until the injured party has found witnesses he has to pay double restitution: the value of the object which he took as a debt and the double as a fine.
¹²⁵ For the rabbis the main claim of the father of an underage rape victim is for the diminution of his daughter’s chances on the marriage market; this is a claim for damages, not a fine, and in this respect “the admission of the debtor is worth 100 witnesses.”
¹²¹ In this entire paragraph, “liable” has to be replaced by “not liable” and vice versa. The principle that a confession frees a person from a fine is valid only if the confession preceded the appearance of witnesses since witnesses make his confession unnecessary. If the thief waits until the injured party has found witnesses he has to pay double restitution: the value of the object which he took as a debt and the double as a fine.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 8:4:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 8:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shevuot/r/8:4:1)

**משנה:** אָמַר לַשּׁוֹאֵל אֵיכָן שׁוֹרִי אָמַר לוֹ מֵת וְהוּא שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה אוֹ נִגְנַב אוֹ אָבַד. נִשְׁבַּר וְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה אוֹ נִגְנַב אוֹ אָבַד. נִשְׁבָּה וְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ נִשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִגְנַב אוֹ אָבַד. נִגְנַב וְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ נִשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה אוֹ אָבַד. אָבַד וְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ נִשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה אוֹ נִגְנַב. מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אֲנִי וְאָמַר אָמֵן פָּטוּר: אֵיכָן שׁוֹרִי אָמַר לוֹ אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מָה אַתָּה שָׂח וְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ נִשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה אוֹ נִגְנַב אוֹ אָבַד. מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אֲנִי וְאָמַר אָמֵן חַיָיב. אָמַר לְנוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר אֵיכָן שׁוֹרִי אָמַר לוֹ מֵת וְהוּא שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה. נִשְׁבַּר וְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה. נִשְׁבָּה וְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ נִשְׁבַּר. נִגְנַב וְהוּא שֶׁאָבַד. אָבַד וְהוּא שֶׁנִּגְנַב. מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אֲנִי וְאָמַר אָמֵן פָּטוּר. מֵת אוֹ נִשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה וְהוּא שֶׁנִּגְנַב אוֹ אָבַד. מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אֲנִי וְאָמַר אָמֵן חַיָיב. אָבַד אוֹ נִגְנַב וְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ נִשְׁבַר אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה פָּטוּר. זֶה הַכְּלָל כָּל הַנִּשְׁבָּע לְהָקֵל עַל עַצְטוֹ חַיָיב. לְהַחְמִיר עַל עַצְמוֹ פָּטוּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** He said to the borrower, “where is my ox?” He told him, “it died,” but it broke, or was abducted, or stolen, or lost⁷⁰. 22:6,9, where the unpaid keeper swears but does not have to pay. Breakage refers to vessels, not to animals; it is included since it appears in the verse.. “It broke,” but it died, or was abducted, or stolen, or lost. “ ”It was abducted,” but it died, or broke, or was stolen, or lost. “It was stolen,” but it died, or broke, or was abducted, or lost. “It was lost,” but it died, or broke, or was abducted, or stolen. “I want you to swear;” he answered “Amen”. He is not liable⁸⁵.
“Where is my ox?” He told him, “I do not know.” “What are you telling?” But if had died, or broke, or was abducted, or stolen, or lost. “I want you to swear;” he answered “Amen”. He is liable⁸⁶.
He said to the recipient of a fee or to a renter, “where is my ox?” He told him, “it died,” but it broke or was abducted; “it broke,” but it died or was abducted; “it was abducted,” but it died or broke; “it was stolen,” but it was lost; “it was lost,” but it was stolen. “I want you to swear;” if he said “Amen”, he is not liable.
“It died, or it broke, or it was abducted,” when it was stolen or lost. “I want you to swear;” if he said “Amen”, he is liable. “It was lost, or stolen,” when it died, or broke, or was abducted; he is not liable. This is the principle: Anybody who swears to his benefit is liable, to his detriment is not liable.

footnotes:
⁷⁰ These are the cases enumerated in Ex
⁸⁵ Since the borrower pays for any of the reasons mentioned, by his oath he does not deprive the owner of any money. Therefore no sacrifice is due.
⁸⁶ He denies ever having borrowed an ox. His oath is to the detriment of the owner; a sacrifice is due in addition to the restitution of 125% of the value.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 8:4:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 8:4:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shevuot/r/8:4:2)

**הלכה:** תַּנֵּי. לֹא לְהָקֵל וְלֹא לְהַחֲמִיר חַיָיב. אָמַר רִבִּי. מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה כֵן. אָמַר לַשּׁוֹאֵל אָמַר לְשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם אָמַר לְנוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר. אֵיכָן שׁוֹרִי. אָמַר לוֹ. מֵת. מָהוּ שֶׁיֹּאמַר לוֹ. בּוֹא וְהִשָּׁבַע לִי שֶׁלֹּא נָתַתָּה עֵינֶיךָ בָהּ לְגוֹזְלָהּ. מִכָּל מָקוֹם אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם. מָהוּ דְיֵימַר לֵיהּ. אֲפִילוּ דְאַתְּ יְהַב לִי כַמָּה דִּידִי אֲנָא בָעֵי גַבָּךְ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** It was stated: If it was neither to his benefit nor to his detriment, he is liable¹²⁶ which disagrees with the Mishnah and holds that a false oath is a false oath even if the false formulation does no harm to the other party.. Rebbi said, a *baraita* says so: “If he said to the borrower, the unpaid trustee, the recipient of a fee, or the renter, ‘where is my ox?’ This one said, ‘it died.’¹²⁷ must have the person who swore falsely not to the detriment of the depositor as liable to the penalties of a false oath.” May he tell him, “come and swear to me that you never thought of rustling it”¹²³? In any case he would not pay; what could he say? “Even if you would pay me a lot, I want from you what is mine.”

footnotes:
¹²⁶ There is a baraita
¹²⁷ Tosephta 6:7 starts in this way; but the baraita
¹ Could the depositor ask that the paid trustee or renter, or even the borrower, who paid for the lost or stolen object, nevertheless swear that they do not hold the object in their possession? The first argument is against, for the oath will not change the monetary situation. The second argument is in favor; there is a value to one’s own possession which cannot be expressed in monetary terms. The answer is not given, nor is the question raised in the Babli. In the absence of guidance, a court cannot act.
²³ The owner of an object stolen from an unpaid keeper. If he cannot recoup his loss he might be tempted to let the keeper swear in the hope that he might prefer to pay rather than swear.