Q&A: A Definite Swindler
Originally published:
This is an English translation (via GPT-5.4). Read the original Hebrew version.
A Definite Swindler
Question
In the case of “two are holding” it is well known that according to Rashi, with a swindler they do not divide it. My question is whether one could say that because Rashi holds that in the final conclusion we do say “since he is suspected,” then with a swindler the problem is that he cannot be made to swear, and therefore it should remain lying there.
Answer
A swindler is not necessarily suspected of a false oath. Beyond that, you are talking about “since he is suspected with regard to money, he is suspected with regard to an oath,” and not the other way around.