Reference for Bava Kamma 215:16

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

whereas here the liabilities are of one kind<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., either two Fifths or two amounts of double payment. ');">¹²</span> [and should therefore be paid], or perhaps it was two pecuniary liabilities<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' No difference whether of one kind or of two different kinds. ');">¹³</span> that the Divine Law forbade to be paid regarding one and the same pecuniary value and here also the pecuniary liabilities are two?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., either two Fifths or two amounts of double payment. ');">¹²</span> — Come and hear what Raba stated: And shall add the fifth:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 24. ');">¹⁴</span> the Torah has thus attached many fifths to one principal.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 65b, v. also Sifra on Lev. V, 24, and Malbim, a.l. ');">¹⁵</span> It could surely be derived from this. If the owner had claimed [his deposit] from the bailee who, [though] he [denied the claim] on oath [nevertheless] paid it, and [it so happened that] the actual thief was identified,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And has to pay double. ');">¹⁶</span> to whom should the double payment go?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Either to the bailee in accordance with B.M. 33b, to be quoted presently, or to the depositor. ');">¹⁷</span> — Abaye said: To the owner of the deposit, but Raba said: To [the bailee with] whom the deposit was in charge. Abaye said that it should go to the depositor, for since he was troubled<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the bailee. ');">¹⁸</span> to the extent of having to impose an oath, he could not be expected to have transferred the double payment.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the bailee; v. B.M. 34a and also 35a. ');">¹⁹</span> But Raba said that it would go to [the bailee with] whom the deposit was in charge, for since [after all] he paid him, the double payment was surely transferred to him. They are divided on the implication of a Mishnah, for we learned: Where one person deposited with another an animal or utensils which were subsequently stolen or lost, if the bailee paid, rather than deny on oath, although it has been stated<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid VII, 8. ');">²⁰</span> that an unpaid bailee can by means of an oath discharge his liability and [it so happened that] the actual thief was found and had thus to make double payment, or, if he had already slaughtered the animal or sold it, fourfold or fivefold payment, to whom should he pay? To him with whom the deposit was in charge. But if the bailee took an oath [to defend himself] rather than pay and [it so happened that] the actual thief was found and has to make double payment, or, where he already slaughtered the animal or sold it, fourfold or fivefold payment, to whom shall he pay? To the owner of the deposit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.M. 33b. ');">²¹</span> Now, Abaye infers his view from the commencing clause, whereas Raba deduces his ruling from the concluding clause. Abaye infers his view from the commencing clause where it was stated: 'If the bailee paid, rather than deny on oath&nbsp;…' this is so only where he was not willing to swear,

Jastrow

Jastrow

Jastrow

Jastrow

Jastrow