Komentaryo sa Exodo 22:7: Rashi, Chizkuni, Ramban & Sforno

אם לא ימצא הגנב IF THE THIEF BE NOT FOUND then this bailee — who is בעל הבית “the owner of the house” for the time being (since the bailment is then in his possession although he is not really its owner) — shall come.

ונקרב בעל הבית, “the owner has to come to court for the purpose of confirming his claim by an oath;” This rule is applicable if he had claimed not to have misappropriated said object or objects which had disappeared. If he had claimed that the object or animal had become the victim of wild beasts, etc. he is only asked to produce evidence supporting his claim before a court.

WHETHER HE HAVE NOT PUT HIS HAND UNTO HIS NEIGHBOR’S GOODS. In the opinion of Rashi this means that the guardian is to come before the judges to swear that he has not put his hand to his fellow-man’s goods [i.e., that he is not guilty of embezzlement]. The correct interpretation is that he is to come before the judges to swear that it was stolen and thus substantiate his claim, but he can only swear thus if he did not put his hand to make use of his neighbor’s goods, for he who puts to his own use what had been left in his keeping is answerable for it as if he were a robber, and is liable to make restitution even if it was lost through an unavoidable accident.²¹⁷Baba Metzia 41a.

ונקרב אל AND SHALL APPROACH UNTO THE אלהים — the judges, to put his case against the other and to swear unto him that he has not put forth his hands against his property (Bava Kamma 63b).