so what should be done regarding the victim? We say: the slave remains pledged for the present; then, once the pledge is discharged, we will fulfil the victim’s right.

His statement, “unless the pledgee confirms him”: in “confirms him,” the pronoun refers to the pledgor, while the pledgee is the subject. That is, unless the pledgee confirms the pledgor’s claim that it belongs to someone else or that it committed an offense. Thus, if the pledgee says, “Yes, it belongs to someone else,” then the pledge is invalidated, because the pledgee has acknowledged that the pledge is invalid: the pledgor had pledged what he did not own. The slave is then handed over to the person in whose favor the pledgor made the acknowledgement.

Likewise, if the pledgee says, “Yes, the slave committed an offense,” we say: the consequence of the offense is now that liability attaches to the slave himself, so hand the slave over to his owner.

But is it possible for the pledgee to confirm the pledgor in a matter that invalidates his own right?

The answer is: yes, it is possible. He may know that this pledgor is a truthful man who could not lie, but that he was deceived or initially intended deception and then repented. Or it may be established by evidence. However, if it is established by evidence, judgment is made according to that evidence, whether or not the pledgee confirms him, for the discussion here concerns mere acknowledgement.