Study Bava Kamma folio 108A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
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 1/5th payment?
The Talmud 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 1/5th 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 1/5th payment? Or perhaps is it admitting to a false oath that renders him liable for double payment which exempts him from the additional 1/5th 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 1/5th 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 Mishnah (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 1/5th payment, and bring a guilt-offering.