Bava Kamma 215:1

ובאו עדים אקמייתא והודה אבתרייתא מאי

and it so happened that witnesses appeared and proved the first oath [to have been perjury]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And thus subject to Ex. XXII, 8. ');">¹</span>

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

while he himself confessed that the last oath was perjury.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rendering himself thus liable under Lev. V, 21-25. ');">²</span>

אמר רבא ת"ש 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

Now, what is the law? Is it the pecuniary value for which there is liability to make double payment that exempts from the Fifth, so that [as] in this case too there is liability to make double payment [for the deposit, there would be no Fifth for it], or perhaps it is the oath which involves a liability for double payment that exempts from a Fifth, so that since the last oath does not entail liability for double payment<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he did not confirm a defence of theft. ');">³</span>

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

it should entail the liability for the Fifth? — Said Raba: Come and hear: If a man said to another in the market: 'Where is my ox which you have stolen,' and the other rejoined, 'I did not steal it at all,' whereupon the first said, 'Swear to me, and the defendant replied, 'Amen,' and witnesses then gave evidence against him that he did steal it, he would have to repay double, but if he confessed on his own accord, he would have to pay the Principal and a Fifth and bring a trespass offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Mishnah of Shebu. 49a, where, however, the adjuration is missing, but v. also Jer. ibid. 3. ');">⁴</span>

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

Now here it is the witnesses<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not at all the oath. ');">⁵</span>

אלא לאו שמע מינה ממון המחייבו כפל פוטרתו מן החומש ש"מ

who make him liable for double paymentl, and yet it was only where he confessed of his own accord that he would be subject to the law of a Fifth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Lev. V, 24. ');">⁶</span>

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

whereas where he made a confession after [the evidence was given by] the witnesses, it would not be so. But if you assume that it is the oath involving liability of double payment that exempts from the Fifth, why then [in this case] even where he made confession after the evidence had already been given by the witnesses should the liability for the Fifth not be involved? Since the oath here was not instrumental in imposing the liability for double payment why should it not involve the liability for the Fifth? This would seem conclusively to prove that a pecuniary value for which there is liability to make double payment exempts from the Fifth, would it not? — This could indeed be proved from it.

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:

Rabina asked: What would be the law as to a Fifth and double payment to be borne by two persons respectively? — What were the circumstances? — E.g., where an ox was handed over to two persons and both pleaded in defence theft, but while one of them confirmed it by an oath and subsequently confessed [it to have been perjury] the other one confirmed it by an oath and witnesses appeared [and proved it perjury]. Now, what is the law? Shall we say that it was only in the case of one man that the Divine Law was particular that he should not pay both the Fifth and double payment,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 628, n. 5. ');">⁷</span>

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

so that in this case [where two persons are involved]. one should make double payment and the other should pay a Fifth, or shall it perhaps be said that it was regarding one and the same pecuniary value that the Divine Law was particular that there should not be made any payment of both a Fifth and double payment;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 628, n. 5. ');">⁸</span>

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

and in this case also it was one and the same pecuniary value? — This must stand undecided.

תא שמע דאמר רבא (ויקרא ה, כד) וחמישיתו יוסיף עליו התורה ריבתה חמישיות הרבה לקרן אחת שמע מינה:

R. Papa asked: What would be the law regarding two Fifths and two double payments in the case of one man? What are the circumstances? E.g., where the bailee first pleaded in his defence loss and after confirming it by an oath confessed [it to have been perjury],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 628, n. 7. ');">⁹</span>

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

but afterwards came back and pleaded [again a subsequent] loss, confirming it by an oath, and then again confessed [it to have been perjury];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 628, n. 7. ');">⁹</span>

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

or, e.g., where he pleaded in defence theft confirming it by an oath and witnesses appeared [and proved it to have been perjury],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 628, n. 6. ');">¹⁰</span>

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

but he afterwards came back and advanced [again] the defence of [a subsequent] theft, confirming it by an oath, and witnesses appeared against him. Now, what would be the law? Shall we say that it was only two different kinds of pecuniary liability<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as double payment and a Fifth. ');">¹¹</span>

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

that the Divine Law forbade to be paid regarding one and the same pecuniary value,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 628, n. 5. ');">⁸</span>

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,