Study Bava Kamma folio 103B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
הרי זה משלם חומש על חומש, עד שיתמעט הקרן משוה פרוטה.
then the additional 1/5th is considered a new principal obligation. The robber pays an additional 1/5th payment apart from the additional 1/5th payment about which he had taken a false oath. If he then takes a false oath concerning the second 1/5th payment, he is assessed an additional 1/5th payment for that oath, until the principal, i.e., the additional 1/5th payment about which he has most recently taken the false oath, is reduced to less than the value of one peruta.
וכן בפקדון, שנאמר: ״או בפקדון או בתשומת יד או בגזל, או עשק את עמיתו או מצא אבדה; וכחש בה ונשבע על שקר״ – הרי זה משלם קרן וחומש ואשם.
And such is the halakha with regard to a deposit, as it is stated: “If anyone sins, and commits a trespass against YHWH, and he defrauds his counterpart with regard to a deposit, or with regard to a pledge, or with regard to a robbery, or if he exploited his counterpart; or he has found that which was lost, and deals falsely with it, and swears to a lie…he should restore it in full, and should add the fifth part more to it” (Leviticus 5:21–24). This one must pay the principal and an additional 1/5th payment, and bring a guilt-offering.
גמ׳ נשבע לו – אין, לא נשבע לו – לא; מני? לא רבי טרפון ולא רבי עקיבא! דתניא: גזל אחד מחמשה ואינו יודע איזה מהן, וכל אחד אומר: ״אותי גזל״ – מניח גזילה ביניהם ומסתלק, דברי רבי טרפון. רבי עקיבא אומר: לא זו דרך מוציאתו מידי עבירה, עד שישלם גזילה לכל אחד [ואחד].
Talmud: The Mishnah teaches that if a robber took a false oath that he did not rob, he must travel even as far as Media in order to repay the robbery victim. This indicates that if he takes an oath to the robbery victim, yes, he is required to go to any length to repay his obligation, but if he did not take an oath to him, no, he does not have to do so. Whose opinion is this? It is not the opinion of R' Tarfon and not the opinion of R' Akiva, as it is taught in a Mishnah (Yevamot 118b): If one robbed one of 5 people and he does not know which of them he robbed, and each one of the 5 says: He robbed me, the robber places the stolen item between them and withdraws from them; this is the statement of R' Tarfon. R' Akiva says: This is not the way to spare him from transgression. He is not considered to have returned the stolen item until he pays the value of the stolen item to each and every one of the 5.