If the Ganav is not found, who has to pay Kefel?
Bava Kama, 63b: The Pasuk is referring to a 'To'en Ta'anas Ganav' - where the Shomer Chinam claims that the article was stolen, but it turns out that he is the one who stole the article.
What are the implications of "Im Lo Yimatzei ha'Ganav ... "?
Yerushalmi Shevu'os, 5:1: It implies that if the Ganav is found, the Shomer Chinam is Patur, and, in the event that the Ganav is unable to pay, the owner cannot make him swear that he did not set his eyes on the article to steal it.
What are the connotations of "Venikrav Ba'al-ha'Bayis el ha'Elohim"? Who is the Ba'al ha'Bayis?
Rashi and Rashbam: It refers to the Shomer Chinam 1 (whom the Torah refers to as "Ba'al ha'Bayis") coming to Beis-Din to swear that he did not stretch out hand against the deposited article and be Patur. 2
Rashi (in Bava Kama, 41b): This does not apply to a Shomer Sachar, who is Chayav to pay if he claims that the article was stolen. It will apply however, if he claims that an Oneis occurred.
Rashi (in Pasuk 8): And the Shomer Chinam is only Chayav to pay Kefel if the witnesses that implicate him testify after he swore.
How do we know that "Venikrav Ba'al-ha'Bayis el ha'Elohim" means to make a Shevu'ah?
Rashi, in Pasuk 8: We learn it from a Gezeirah Shavah "Im Lo Shalach Yado" "Im Lo Shalach Yado" from Shomer Sachar in Pasuk 10 - where the Torah specifically writes "Shevu'as Hashem Tih'yeh bein Sheneihem".
What does the Shomer Chinam swear?
Rashi, Rashbam and Targum Yonasan: He swears that he did not take the article for his own personal use 1 (and that he was not negligent - Rashi in Bava Kama, 41b & 94b).
Ramban: He swears to substantiate his claim that it was stolen. 2
Bava Kama, 63b: If the Ganav is not found, He swears that the article was stolen as per his claim. 3
Because if he did, it is akin to theft and he would be Chayav even for subsequent Onsin (Ramban and Seforno, citing Bava Kama, 63b). Refer also to 22:10:1:1.
"Im Lo Shalach Yado ... " is the condition that enables him to swear and be Patur, not a description of the Shevu'ah. See the final comment in Rav Chavel's footnotes. Gur Aryeh: Rashi in Pasuk 10 also explains like this. Since the Torah suspects him of Shelichus Yad and makes him swear, he must also swear as to what happened to it..
Torah Temimah: And the order of the statement in the Pasuk must be inverted - If the Ganav is not found - as per the Shomer's claim, but he is found to have stolen it, and he swore earlier (when he claimed that the article was stolen).
Why does the Torah insert the (otherwise superfluous) word "Im Lo Yimatzei ha'Ganav"?
Bava Kama, 63b: To preclude a 'To'en Ta'anas Avad' (where he claims that the article was lost) from paying Kefel.
What, in the event that the Ganav is found but is unable to pay, if the owner asks the Shomer to swear that he did not use the article?
Yerushalmi Shevu'os, 8:1. The Torah specifically obligates Shole'ach Yad by "Lo Nimtza ha'Ganav", but not where the Ganav is found.
On what condition does a Shomer become a Shole'ach Yad?
Rashi (in Pasuk 10): If he actually picks up the article with the intention of using it for himself 1 - not if he merely intendes to do so. 2
Moshav Zekenim: It is only if one took it in order to steal it. 3
See Torah Temimah, note 106 and refer to 22:7:151:1 and note, and 22:7:151:2.
Bava Metzi'a 41a: Rav holds that Shelichus Yad is only if there is a loss to the object, and Levi disagrees.
What are the implications of the sequence "Venikrav Ba'al-ha'Bayis el ha'Elokim Im Lo Shalach Yado bi'Meleches Re'ehu"?
Bava Kama, 107b: It implies that, if the Shomer Chinam was Shole'ach Yad before he swore he is no longer Chayav Kefel like a To'en Ta'anas Ganav, since he acquired the article and became Chayav Onsin like a Gazlan.
Bava Metzi'a, 43b: It implies that he only becomes Chayav Onsin if he actually takes the article in order to use it, but not by merely intending to do so. 1
See Torah Temimah, note 106.
What are the implications of the word "Elohim"?
Sanhedrin, 56b: We learn from here that Dayanim are called 'Elohim'. 1
How do we know that 'Venikrav Ba'al-ha'Bayis el ha'Elokim' does not mean to consult the Urim ve'Tumim"
Mechilta: Because it is impossible to apply the words "asher Yarshi'un Elokim" to Hakadosh-Baruch-Hu. 1
See Torah Temmiah, note 103.
What will be the Din if the Shomer Chinam swears that the article was stolen and it transpires that he stole it and Shechted or sold it?
