Rashi, Ramban, Seforno and Rashbam #1 (citing Bava Kama, 63b): It is referring to where the Shomer swears falsely that the article was stolen (To'en Ta'anas Ganav), when in fact, he is the one who 'stole' it.

Targum Yonasan: It is referring to where the Shomer has to swear, and depending upon whether he swore ¹ or paid, ² the Ganav, when he is found, pays either the Shomer or the owner.

Oznayim la'Torah: It refers to his false claim (D'var - Dibur) of To'en Ta'anas Ganav.

Targum Yonasan: It teaches us that a Shomer Chinam is Chayav for negligence.

Bava Kama, 63a: It includes every article - whether it has a spirit of life or not - in the Din of To'en Ta'anas Ganav. ¹

Bava Metzi'a, 42a: To include where the Shomer instructed his Eved or his Shali'ach to use the article in the Din of Shole'ach Yad. ¹

Rashi (on Beraisa de'R. Yishmael): It is a K'lal u'Perat u'Kelal, ¹ to preclude whatever is not moveable (Karka, and Avadim, which are compared to Karka) and whatever has no intrinsic value (Sh'taros), from the Din of Shevu'as Shomrim and to exempt the Shomer from paying. ²

Da'as Zekenim and Hadar Zekenim (in Pasuk 5): The Pasuk alludes to Hashem's claim against Aharon for making the Eigel (a baby ox). The Eirev Rav - who were from Egypt, which is compared to a donkey, caused Yisrael - who are xompared to a 'Seh Pezurah - to sin. Salmah is like Tzelem (an idol). Also Aveidah refers to idolatry - "Abed Te'abdun." Ki hu Zeh - they said "Zeh Elohecha" (Nechemyah 9:18). Ad ha'Elohim is Moshe - "Nesaticha Elohim." Devar Sheneihem - of Hashem and Aharon. Yeshalem Shenayim - two of Aharon's children (Nadav and Avihu) died.

Bava Kama, 63a: Refer to 22:6:2.3:2 - for a similar set of D'rashos. And "Salmah" comes to preclude from the Din of Kefel a Davar she'Einah Mesuyam - something that is not specific (that has no Si'man - Rashi). ³

Bava Kama, 106b: To teach us that To'en Ta'anas Ganav applies to a lost article as well as to a Pikadon. ¹

Sanhedrin, 3b: To teach us that Dinei Mamonos require three Dayanim ¹ (who have Semichah). ²

Sifri (at the beginning of Va'eschanan): We learn from here ("Ad ha'Elohim Yavo D'var Sheneihem") that "Elokim" denotes Midas ha'Din. ³

Rashi #1 and Rashbam: It refers to the testimony of the witnesses or of the owner that the Shomer has the article in question in his possession.

Rashi #2, Seforno and Targum Yonasan: It is the Shomer who claims Ki Hu Zeh" - and the Chachamim learn from here that a Shomer (and a borrower) ¹ is only Chayav a Shevu'ah if he admits that he did indeed steal part of the Pikadon but that part of it was stolen (Modeh be'Miktzas), ² but not if he claims that the entire Pikadon was stolen (Kofer ba'Kol). ³

Ramban: According to the Halachah, what Chazal extrapolate from here, is that the Shomer is only Chayav a Shevu'ah if he admits to having received part of the Pikadon, but not if he denies it completely. ⁴

Bava Kama, 107a: Although the Pasuk is written by Pikadon, it applies to Milveh exclusively - to teach us 'Modeh Miktzas ha'Ta'anah, Chayav Shevu'ah' (that if the debtor admaits to part of the loan, he is Chayav a Shevu'ah).

Bava Metzi'a, 5a: "Ki Hu Zeh" implies that the Shomer admits to part of the claim, to preclude where Reuven claims wheat, and Shimon admits to barley, in which case he is Patur from a Shevu'ah. ⁵

Refer to 22:8:4.1.

Rashi (in Kidushin, 65b): We learn from "Ki Hu Zeh" that a person's admission (regarding money matters) as equal to a hundred witnessses. ¹

Mechilta: It implies that the two litigants ¹ must present their respective cases before Beis-Din directly, and not through interpreters or lawyers. ²

Bava Kama, 106b: Following the D'rashah "Ki YIten Ish" , 've'Lo Katan', it teaches us that the giving and the claiming must be on a par, and that, consequently, if the claimant was a Katan when he gave the Shomer the article to look after, even though he is now a Gadol, his claim is not accepted in Beis-Din. ³

Rashi: It implies that if the Shomer is found to be guilty through witnesses, then he must pay double, but if it is the witnesses who testified against him falsely, then they must pay double.

Bava Kama, 64b: The Shomer is only Chayav to swear (and to subsequently pay) if, based on the testimony of the witnesses, it is the Dayanim who declare him guilty him, but not if he admits of his own accord (Modeh bi'Kenas, Patur). ¹

Bava Kama, 106b: The Torah compares "Im Lo Nimtza ha'Ganav" to Im Nimtza ha'Ganav". Consequently, just as a Ganav is Chayav Arba'ah va'Chamishah if he Shechts or sells the stolen animal, so too must a To'en Ta'anas Ganav.

Rashi: It refers to the Shomer - if he stole the article or to the witnesses - should they turn out to be Eidim Zom'min.

Mechilta: "le'Re'ehu", 've'Lo le'Hekdesh'; "le'Re'ehu", 've'Lo le'Nochri' - to preclude someone who steals from Hekdesh ¹ or from Nochrim from having to pay Kefel.