The gmara says toward the end of the daf as explained by rashi, that one who denies without an oath when it's in the marsh is buying time and not considered a gazlan regarding inculcating himself to testify. How is this in line with the Gmaras current line of thinking that says a kofer pikadon becomes obligated in chomesh?
Yosef Alden, Cincinnati USA
Shalom R' Alden,
Great to hear from you! I understand from Rashi (105b DH d'Kai b'Agam) that the Gemara is making an Ukimta. In other words, Rav Sheishes is interpreted to be only referring to a case where we know that the Nifkad has the Pikadon in his immediate possession. Therefore, At the moment he denies having it, even though he did not swear, he is viewed as a Gazlan, because there is no rationalization to justify his lying regarding its whereabouts.
When the animal in the Agam, on the other hand, we assume that the Shomer denies having it not because he wants to steal it, but rather because he wants to buy time until he manages to retrieve the animal from the wild, at which point we assume he will gladly return it to the true owner. Because the Shomer's lie is not necessarily so malicious, therefore he is not considered a Gazlan unless he actually swears.
If there is more to clarify, of course I'll be happy to discuss it with you. But for now I hope this is a helpful start.
Warmest regards,
Yishai Rasowsky