## Bava Kamma Daf 108a

###### Bava Kamma 108a:1
[Bava Kamma 108a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/108a:1)

וּבָאוּ עֵדִים אַקַּמַּיְיתָא, וְהוֹדָה אַבָּתְרָיְיתָא. מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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?


###### Bava Kamma 108a:2
[Bava Kamma 108a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/108a:2)

מָמוֹן הַמְחַיְּיבוֹ כֶּפֶל פּוֹטְרוֹ מִן הַחוֹמֶשׁ – וְהָא אִיחַיַּיב לֵיהּ עִילָּוֵיהּ כְּפֵילָא; אוֹ דִלְמָא שְׁבוּעָה הַמְחַיַּיבְתּוֹ כֶּפֶל פּוֹטַרְתּוֹ מִן הַחוֹמֶשׁ – וְהָא שְׁבוּעָה בָּתְרָיְיתָא, הוֹאִיל דְּלָא קָא מְחַיְּיבָא לֵיהּ כְּפֵילָא, תְּחַיְּיבֵיהּ חוּמְשָׁא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


###### Bava Kamma 108a:3
[Bava Kamma 108a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/108a:3)

אָמַר רָבָא: תָּא שְׁמַע, אָמַר לְאֶחָד מִן הַשּׁוּק: ״הֵיכָן שׁוֹרִי שֶׁגָּנַבְתָּ?״ וְהוּא אוֹמֵר: ״לֹא גָּנַבְתִּי״. ״מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אֲנִי״, וְאָמַר: ״אָמֵן״. וְהָעֵדִים מְעִידִים אוֹתוֹ שֶׁגְּנָבוֹ – מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל. וְאִם הוֹדָה מֵעַצְמוֹ – מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וָחוֹמֶשׁ וְאָשָׁם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Bava Kamma 108a:4
[Bava Kamma 108a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/108a:4)

וְהָא הָכָא, עֵדִים הוּא דִּמְחַיְּיבִי לֵיהּ כְּפֵילָא; הוֹדָה מֵעַצְמוֹ – אִין, אֲבָל הוֹדָה אַחַר עֵדִים – לָא;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Kamma 108a:5
[Bava Kamma 108a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/108a:5)

וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ שְׁבוּעָה הַמְחַיַּיבְתּוֹ כֶּפֶל פּוֹטַרְתּוֹ מִן הַחוֹמֶשׁ, אַמַּאי הוֹדָה אַחַר עֵדִים לָא? מִכְּדִי הָא שְׁבוּעָה לָא קָא מְיחַיְּיבָא לֵיהּ כְּפֵילָא, תְּחַיְּיבֵיהּ חוּמְשָׁא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Kamma 108a:6
[Bava Kamma 108a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/108a:6)

אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: מָמוֹן הַמְחַיְּיבוֹ כֶּפֶל – פּוֹטְר(תּ)וֹ מִן הַחוֹמֶשׁ? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Kamma 108a:7
[Bava Kamma 108a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/108a:7)

בָּעֵי רָבִינָא: חוֹמֶשׁ וּכְפֵילָא בִּתְרֵי גַבְרֵי, מַאי? הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? כְּגוֹן שֶׁמָּסַר שׁוֹרוֹ לִשְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם, וְטָעֲנוּ בּוֹ טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב. חַד נִשְׁבַּע וְהוֹדָה, וְחַד נִשְׁבַּע וּבָאוּ עֵדִים. מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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?


###### Bava Kamma 108a:8
[Bava Kamma 108a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/108a:8)

מִי אָמְרִינַן: בְּחַד גַּבְרָא קָפֵיד רַחֲמָנָא דְּלָא מְשַׁלֵּם חוּמְשָׁא וּכְפֵילָא; הַאי נְשַׁלֵּם כְּפֵילָא, וְהַאי נְשַׁלֵּם חוּמְשָׁא; אוֹ דִלְמָא, עִלָּוֵי חַד מָמוֹנָא קָפֵיד רַחֲמָנָא דְּלָא נְשַׁלֵּם עֲלֵהּ חוּמְשָׁא וּכְפֵילָא – וְהָכָא נָמֵי חַד מָמוֹנָא הוּא? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Kamma 108a:9
[Bava Kamma 108a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/108a:9)

בָּעֵי רַב פָּפָּא: תְּרֵי חוּמְשֵׁי אוֹ תְּרֵי כְפֵילֵי בְּחַד גַּבְרָא, מַאי? הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? שֶׁטָּעַן טַעֲנַת אָבַד, וְנִשְׁבַּע, וְהוֹדָה, וְחָזַר וְטָעַן טַעֲנַת אָבַד, וְנִשְׁבַּע, וְהוֹדָה. אִי נָמֵי, כְּגוֹן שֶׁטָּעַן טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב, וְנִשְׁבַּע, וּבָאוּ עֵדִים, וְחָזַר וְטָעַן טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב, וְנִשְׁבַּע, וּבָאוּ עֵדִים, מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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*?


###### Bava Kamma 108a:10
[Bava Kamma 108a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/108a:10)

מִי אָמְרִינַן: תְּרֵי גַּוְונֵי מָמוֹנָא קָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא דְּלָא נִשְׁתַּלְּמוּ עִילָּוֵי חַד מָמוֹנָא – וְהָכָא חַד גַּוְונָא הוּא; אוֹ דִלְמָא, תְּרֵי מָמוֹנֵי אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא דְּלָא לִשְׁתַּלְּמוּ עִילָּוֵי חַד מָמוֹנָא – וְהָכָא נָמֵי תְּרֵי מָמוֹנֵי נִינְהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


###### Bava Kamma 108a:11
[Bava Kamma 108a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/108a:11)

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רָבָא: ״וַחֲמִשִׁתָיו יֹסֵף עָלָיו״ – הַתּוֹרָה רִיבְּתָה חֲמִישִׁיּוֹת הַרְבֵּה לְקֶרֶן אַחַת! שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests a 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*.


###### Bava Kamma 108a:12
[Bava Kamma 108a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/108a:12)

תְּבָעוּהוּ בְּעָלִים לַשּׁוֹמֵר, וְנִשְׁבַּע, וְשִׁילֵּם, וְהוּכַּר הַגַּנָּב – כֶּפֶל לְמִי? אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: לְבַעַל הַפִּקָּדוֹן, רָבָא אָמַר: לְמִי שֶׁהַפִּקָּדוֹן אֶצְלוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


###### Bava Kamma 108a:13
[Bava Kamma 108a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/108a:13)

אַבָּיֵי אָמַר לְבַעַל הַפִּקָּדוֹן – כֵּיוָן דְּאַטְרְחֵיהּ בִּשְׁבוּעָה, לָא מַקְנֵי לֵיהּ כְּפֵילָא. רָבָא אָמַר לְמִי שֶׁהַפִּקָּדוֹן אֶצְלוֹ – כֵּיוָן דְּשִׁילֵּם, מַקְנֵי לֵיהּ כְּפֵילָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Kamma 108a:14
[Bava Kamma 108a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/108a:14)

וְקָא מִיפַּלְגִי בְּדִיּוּקָא דְמַתְנִיתִין, דִּתְנַן: הַמַּפְקִיד אֵצֶל חֲבֵירוֹ בְּהֵמָה אוֹ כֵלִים, וְנִגְנְבוּ אוֹ שֶׁאָבְדוּ; שִׁילֵּם וְלֹא רָצָה לִישָּׁבַע – שֶׁהֲרֵי אָמְרוּ: שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם נִשְׁבָּע וְיוֹצֵא; נִמְצָא הַגַּנָּב – מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל. טָבַח וּמָכַר – מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. לְמִי הוּא מְשַׁלֵּם? לְמִי שֶׁהַפִּקָּדוֹן אֶצְלוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Kamma 108a:15
[Bava Kamma 108a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/108a:15)

נִשְׁבַּע וְלֹא רָצָה לְשַׁלֵּם, וְנִמְצָא הַגַּנָּב – מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל. טָבַח וּמָכַר – מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. לְמִי הוּא מְשַׁלֵּם? לְבַעַל הַפִּקָּדוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Kamma 108a:16
[Bava Kamma 108a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/108a:16)

אַבָּיֵי דָּיֵיק מֵרֵישָׁא, רָבָא דָּיֵיק מִסֵּיפָא. אַבָּיֵי דָּיֵיק מֵרֵישָׁא – דְּקָתָנֵי: שִׁילֵּם וְלֹא רָצָה לִישָּׁבַע. טַעְמָא דְּלֹא רָצָה לִישָּׁבַע,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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,**