daf bit: Bava Metzia 5
There was a shepherd to whom people entrusted their cattle every day
in front of witnesses. One day they handed over the cattle without
witnesses and the shepherd later denied having them. Should the
shepherd have to swear an oath that he is innocent? Rabbi Abaye says no,
not only do we not make him swear, but a robber is not allowed
to swear. (Having already committed robbery, it is presumed that
he will also commit perjury.) Rather, it is the claimant who must
swear the oath in order to collect damages. (5a)
It's possible that Rabbi Abaye is using circular logic here (the shepherd is accused of robbery), but I suspect what's really going on is that if he is a robber he has already committed one transgression, so do we want to set him up to commit another, this one involving the divine name?
It's possible that Rabbi Abaye is using circular logic here (the shepherd is accused of robbery), but I suspect what's really going on is that if he is a robber he has already committed one transgression, so do we want to set him up to commit another, this one involving the divine name?