ובאו עדים אקמייתא והודה אבתרייתא מאי

and witnesses come and testify with regard to his first claim that at the time he took an oath that the deposit had been stolen, it was actually in his possession; and he admits with regard to his second claim that it had been a lie and that it had not actually been lost, what is the halakha: Is he obligated to pay the additional one-fifth payment?

ממון המחייבתו כפל פוטרו מן החומש והא איחייב ליה עילויה כפילא או דלמא שבועה המחייבתו כפל פוטרתו מן החומש והא שבועה בתרייתא הואיל דלא קא מחייבא ליה כפילא תחייביה חומשא

The Gemara explains the two possibilities: Is it being obligated in a monetary obligation that renders him liable for double payment which exempts him from the additional one-fifth payment, and in this case he is liable for the double payment for the deposit due to the witness testimony and would therefore be exempt from the additional one-fifth payment? Or perhaps is it admitting to a false oath that renders him liable for double payment which exempts him from the additional one-fifth payment, and with regard to this latter oath that the item was lost, since it does not render him liable for the double payment, as he took an oath that it had been lost, not stolen, will it render him liable for the additional one-fifth payment?

אמר רבא תא שמע אמר לאחד מן השוק היכן שורי שגנבת והוא אומר לא גנבתי משביעך אני ואמר אמן והעדים מעידים אותו שגנבו משלם תשלומי כפל ואם הודה מעצמו משלם קרן וחומש ואשם

Rava said: Come and hear a solution to this dilemma from a mishna ( Shevuot 49b): In a scenario where one said to someone from the marketplace: Where is my ox that you stole? And the accused says in response: I did not steal it; whereupon the owner of the ox said: I administer an oath to you, and the accused said: Amen, accepting the oath; and the witnesses testify about the accused that he stole it, he must pay double payment. And if he admitted of his own accord that he stole it, then he must pay the principal and the additional one-fifth payment, and bring a guilt-offering.

והא הכא עדים הוא דמחייבי ליה כפילא הודה מעצמו אין אבל הודה אחר עדים לא

Rava explains the proof: But here, it is witnesses who render him liable for the double payment, as since the accused was not a bailee, the oath does not render him liable, and yet the mishna teaches that if he admitted of his own accord that he stole it, then yes, he must pay the additional one-fifth payment, but if he admitted after witnesses testified, then no, he is not required to pay the additional one-fifth.

ואי סלקא דעתך שבועה המחייבתו כפל פוטרתו מן החומש אמאי הודה אחר עדים לא מכדי הא שבועה לא קא מיחייבא ליה כפילא תחייביה חומשא

Rava continues: And if it enters your mind to say that it is an oath that renders him liable for double payment which exempts him from the additional one-fifth payment, why does he not pay the additional one-fifth payment if he admitted that it was a false oath after witnesses testified? After all, this oath does not render him liable to pay the double payment, as the halakha that one who falsely takes an oath that the item was stolen pays double payment applies only in the case of a bailee; therefore, the oath should render him liable to pay the additional one-fifth payment, as does any false oath taken with regard to a monetary claim.

אלא לאו שמע מינה ממון המחייבו כפל פוטרתו מן החומש שמע מינה

Rava completes the proof: Rather, must one not conclude from this mishna that it is the monetary obligation that renders him liable to pay the double payment which exempts him from the additional one-fifth payment? The Gemara affirms: Conclude from the mishna that the additional one-fifth payment is dependent upon the type of monetary obligation, and not an oath, resolving Rami bar Ḥama’s dilemma.

בעי רבינא חומש וכפילא בתרי גברי מאי היכי דמי כגון שמסר שורו לשני בני אדם וטענו בו טענת גנב חד נשבע והודה וחד נשבע ובאו עדים מאי

§ Concerning the additional one-fifth payment, Ravina raises a dilemma: If the additional one-fifth payment and the double payment are split among two men, what is the halakha? The Gemara explains the dilemma: What are the circumstances? This is referring to a case where one transferred his ox to two people to safeguard, and they stated the claim that a thief stole it from them; one of them took an oath that it had been stolen and subsequently admitted of his own accord that he had lied, and one of them took an oath that it had been stolen and subsequently witnesses came and testified that he had lied. What is the halakha in this case?

מי אמרינן בחד גברא קפיד רחמנא דלא משלם חומשא וכפילא האי נשלם כפילא והאי נשלם חומשא או דלמא עלויה חד ממונא קפיד רחמנא דלא נשלם עלה חומשא וכפילא והכא נמי חד ממונא הוא תיקו

Ravina clarifies the possibilities: Do we say that the Merciful One is particular with regard to one man that he does not pay both the additional one-fifth payment and the double payment, whereas in this case, this one about whom the witnesses testified will pay the double payment and that one who admitted of his own accord will pay the additional one-fifth payment? Or perhaps the Merciful One is particular that the additional one-fifth payment and the double payment will not be paid for one monetary obligation, and here too, it is one monetary obligation? The Gemara comments: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

בעי רב פפא תרי חומשי או תרי כפילי בחד גברא מאי היכי דמי שטען טענת אבד ונשבע והודה וחזר וטען טענת אבד ונשבע והודה אי נמי כגון שטען טענת גנב ונשבע ובאו עדים וחזר וטען טענת גנב ונשבע ובאו עדים מאי

§ Concerning the additional one-fifth payment, Rav Pappa raises a dilemma: In a case of two additional one-fifth payments or two double payments with regard to one man, what is the halakha; must he pay twice for the same monetary obligation? The Gemara explains: What are the circumstances? This is referring to a case where one stated the claim that the deposit was lost and took an oath and then admitted that it was not lost, and returned and again stated the claim that the same deposit was lost, and took another oath supporting this claim and again admitted that it was not lost. Alternatively, this is referring to a case where one stated the claim that a thief stole the deposit and took an oath and then witnesses came and testified that he had taken it, and he returned and again stated the claim that a thief stole the same deposit and again took an oath and then witnesses came and again testified that he had taken it; what is the halakha?

מי אמרינן תרי גווני ממונא קאמר רחמנא דלא נשתלמו עילוי חד ממונא והכא חד גוונא הוא או דלמא תרי ממונא אמר רחמנא דלא לשתלמו עילוי חד ממונא והכא נמי תרי ממונא נינהו

Rav Pappa clarifies the possibilities: Do we say that the Merciful One states concerning two types of monetary restitution, e. g., double payment and the additional one-fifth payment, that they will not be paid for one monetary obligation, but here, it is only one type, merely doubled; or perhaps the Merciful One states concerning two payments of monetary restitution that they will not be paid for one monetary obligation, and here too, they are two payments of monetary restitution, whether in the case of two additional one-fifth payments or two double payments?

תא שמע דאמר רבא וחמשתיו יסף עליו התורה ריבתה חמישיות הרבה לקרן אחת שמע מינה

The Gemara suggests resolution to Rav Pappa’s dilemma. Come and hear, as Rava says: The verse states: “ Or anything about which he has sworn falsely, he shall restore it in full, and shall add the fifth part [ḥamishitav] more thereto” (Leviticus 5:24). By employing a plural term, ḥamishitav, and not the singular ḥamishito, the Torah added many additional one-fifths for one principal, meaning that one can become obligated in multiple one-fifth payments for the same principal. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from Rava’s statement that this is the halakha.

תבעוהו בעלים לשומר ונשבע ושילם והוכר הגנב כפל למי אביי אמר לבעל הפקדון רבא אמר למי שהפקדון אצלו

§ The Gemara discusses an amoraic dispute concerning a similar case: If an owner demanded of an unpaid bailee that he return a deposit, and he claimed that it had been stolen from him and took an oath to that effect, and despite being exempt from payment, he paid of his own volition, and subsequently the thief was identified, to whom is double payment paid, the owner or the bailee? Abaye says: To the owner of the deposit. Rava says: To the one in whose possession the deposit was when it was stolen, i. e., the bailee.

אביי אמר לבעל הפקדון כיון דאטרחיה בשבועה לא מקני ליה כפילא רבא אמר למי שהפקדון אצלו כיון דשילם מקני ליה כפילא

The Gemara explains their opinions: Abaye says that the double payment is paid to the owner of the deposit; since the bailee troubled him by taking an oath instead of paying immediately, the owner is not willing to grant acquisition of the double payment to the bailee, so it is paid to the owner. Rava says that the double payment is paid to the one in whose possession the deposit was when it was stolen; once he paid, the owner grants acquisition of the double payment to the bailee.

וקא מיפלגי בדיוקא דמתניתין דתנן המפקיד אצל חבירו בהמה או כלים ונגנבו או שאבדו שילם ולא רצה לישבע שהרי אמרו שומר חנם נשבע ויוצא נמצא הגנב משלם תשלומי כפל טבח ומכר משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה למי הוא משלם למי שהפקדון אצלו

The Gemara explains: And they disagree with regard to the deductive inference to be drawn from the wording of the mishna, as we learned in a mishna ( Bava Metzia 33b): In the case of one who deposits with another, i. e., an unpaid bailee, an animal or vessels, and they were stolen or lost, and the bailee paid the owner and did not wish to take an oath, which he may decide to do, as the Sages said that an unpaid bailee takes an oath that he is exempt and is released from the obligation to pay the owner, but may also opt to pay; in such a case the halakha is that if the thief was found he pays double payment, or if the deposited item was a sheep or an ox and the thief slaughtered or sold it he pays the fourfold or fivefold payment. To whom does the thief pay those payments? He pays them to the one in whose possession the deposit was when it was stolen or lost. When the bailee paid the owner for the stolen item, he acquired it and therefore is entitled to any payment of principal or fine paid by the thief.

נשבע ולא רצה לשלם ונמצא הגנב משלם תשלומי כפל טבח ומכר משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה למי הוא משלם לבעל הפקדון

The mishna continues: If the bailee took an oath and did not wish to pay, and the thief was later found and was required to pay double payment, or he slaughtered or sold the sheep or ox and was required to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment, to whom does the thief pay the money? He pays it to the owner of the deposit, not to the bailee.

אביי דייק מרישא רבא דייק מסיפא אביי דייק מרישא דקתני שילם ולא רצה לישבע טעמא דלא רצה לישבע

The Gemara explains the dispute: Abaye inferred the halakha from the wording of the first clause, and Rava inferred the halakha from the wording of the latter clause. Abaye inferred it from the wording of the first clause, as it teaches: If the bailee paid the owner and did not wish to take an oath, the thief pays the double, fourfold, or fivefold payment to the bailee. Abaye infers from here that the reason the thief pays the bailee is specifically that he did not wish to take an oath,