require denial of a part of the claim and admittance of a part of the claim in order to be obligated to take an oath when someone claims to have given them an item as a deposit, and these are they: An unpaid bailee, and a borrower, a paid bailee, and a renter.

The Gemara quotes the source for this statement. Rava said: What is the reasoning for the statement of Rami bar Ḥama? Concerning an unpaid bailee, it is explicitly written with regard to him: “This is it,” as explained earlier. Concerning a paid bailee, Rami bar Ḥama learns by means of a verbal analogy to the term giving used with regard to a paid bailee from the term giving used with regard to an unpaid bailee, since the verses about both a paid and an unpaid bailee begin: “If a man gives his neighbor” (Exodus 22:6, 9).

Rava continues: Rami bar Ḥama learns the halakha concerning a borrower from the verse: “And if [vekhi] a man borrow” (Exodus 22:13). There is a principle that the conjunction “and,” represented by the letter vav, adds to the previous topic. Based on this principle, the halakhot of a borrower are connected to those of the subject of the previous verse, the bailee. Concerning a renter, if Rami bar Ḥama is stating his ruling according to the one who says that a renter is like a paid bailee, this is the same as a paid bailee; if he is stating his ruling according to the one who says that a renter is like an unpaid bailee, this is the same as an unpaid bailee.

§ And Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef says: With regard to an unpaid bailee who falsely states the claim, with regard to a deposit, that a thief stole it, and is discovered to have lied, he is not liable to pay double payment unless he misappropriates it, i.e., uses it for his own needs, before taking his oath. What is the reason for this? The verse states: “If the thief shall not be found, the owner of the house shall approach the judges to determine if he misappropriated his neighbor’s goods” (Exodus 22:7), and the following verse concludes: “The one whom the judges convict shall pay double to his neighbor.” By inference, one can learn that if he misappropriated it, he is liable for double payment; that is to say that we are dealing only with a case where he misappropriates it.

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to his students: This is what Rabbi Yoḥanan says: They taught this halakha that one who falsely claims that the deposit was stolen is liable for double payment with regard to an animal still standing over its feeding trough, i.e., the bailee is still safeguarding it for its owner. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Is he stating his ruling specifically with regard to an animal standing over its feeding trough, but if the bailee misappropriated it before taking an oath, he has acquired it, and an oath is not effective for him at all, not even to cause him to be liable to pay double payment? Or perhaps he is stating his ruling even with regard to an animal standing over its feeding trough, in addition to an animal that the bailee misappropriated?

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to him: I did not hear this ruling, so I cannot transmit Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion, but I did hear something similar to it, as Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to an unpaid bailee who falsely states the claim that the deposit was lost and takes an oath to that effect, and retracted and falsely states the claim that a thief stole the deposit and takes an oath to that effect, and witnesses came and testified that he lied, he is exempt from double payment for the second claim. What is the reason; is it not due to the fact that he already acquired the item with the first oath, and therefore the second oath is disregarded, which is why he is not liable for double payment for a false claim of theft? So too, one who misappropriates the deposit thereby acquires it and is no longer obligated to take an oath.

Rabbi Zeira said to him: No, there is no proof from there, because one could argue that the reason is not because he acquired the item with the first oath; rather, since it left the owner’s possession with the bailee taking the first oath, he is exempt from taking an additional oath with regard to the same claim, but his oath will be significant even after having misappropriated the item.

It was also stated: Rabbi Avin says that Rabbi Ile’a says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to one who falsely states the claim, with regard to a deposit, that it is now lost, and takes an oath to that effect, and retracts and falsely states the claim that the deposit was taken through theft and takes an oath to that effect, and witnesses come and testify that he lied with regard to the claim of theft, he is exempt from double payment for the second claim, since it left the owner’s possession with the bailee taking the first oath.

The Gemara cites an amora who disputes the ruling of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef. Rav Sheshet says: With regard to an unpaid bailee who falsely states the claim, with regard to a deposit, that a thief stole it, and is discovered to have lied, once he misappropriated it before he took an oath he is exempt. What is the reason for this? This is what the Merciful One is saying, i.e., this is how the verse is to be understood: “If the thief shall not be found, the owner of the house shall approach the judges if he has not misappropriated his neighbor’s goods” (Exodus 22:7), indicating that this verse speaks specifically with regard to a case where he did not misappropriate the deposit; consequently, if he misappropriated it, he is exempt from double payment.

Rav Naḥman said to Rav Sheshet: But aren’t three oaths administered by the court to any unpaid bailee who claims that the deposit was stolen from him? The first is: An oath that I was not negligent in safeguarding it, thereby enabling it to be stolen; the second is: An oath that I did not misappropriate it; the third is: An oath that it is not in my possession. What, is it not so that: An oath that I did not misappropriate it, is similar to: An oath that it is not in my possession, in the following manner: Just as with regard to: An oath that it is not in my possession, when the matter becomes revealed that it is in his possession, he is liable, so too, with regard to: An oath that I did not misappropriate it, when the matter becomes revealed that he did misappropriate it, he should be liable?

Rav Sheshet said to him: No, there is no proof from there, because one could say that the halakha of: An oath that I did not misappropriate it, is similar to the halakha of: An oath that I was not negligent in safeguarding it, in the following manner: Just as with regard to: An oath that I was not negligent in safeguarding it, when the matter becomes revealed that he was negligent in safeguarding it, he is exempt from double payment, so too, with regard to: An oath that I did not misappropriate it, when the matter becomes revealed that he did misappropriate it, he is exempt from double payment. Since the comparison can be made between different pairings of the oaths to suggest opposite conclusions, none of these comparisons are definitive.

§ The baraita quoted earlier (65b) teaches that a bailee who would be liable for double payment if witnesses were to testify that he had in fact stolen a deposit about which he had taken an oath attesting to its theft does not pay the additional one-fifth payment normally imposed upon one who takes a false oath with regard to a monetary claim. The Gemara explores the reason for this halakha. Rami bar Ḥama raises a dilemma: Is it the monetary obligation that renders him liable for double payment which exempts him from the additional one-fifth payment, or perhaps is it the taking of the oath that renders him liable for double payment which exempts him from the additional one-fifth payment?

The Gemara explains: What are the circumstances in which there is a practical difference between these possibilities? It is in a case where he falsely states the claim that a thief stole the deposit and takes an oath to that effect, and retracts and falsely states the claim that it was lost and takes an oath to that effect,