Study Bava Kamma folio 65B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
וחכמים אומרים: ״בראשו וחמשתיו״; ממון המשתלם בראש – מוסיף חומש, ממון שאין משתלם בראש – אין מוסיף חומש. רבי שמעון בן יוחאי אומר: אין חומש ואשם משתלם במקום שיש כפל.
And the Rabbis say: It is written concerning a bailee who falsely claims innocence with regard to a deposit entrusted to him: “He should restore it according to its principal, and should add its fifth part to it” (Leviticus 5:24). This verse teaches that with regard to monetary restitution that is paid precisely according to the principal, one adds 1/5th, but for monetary restitution that is not paid precisely according to the principal, as is the case here, where the bailee pays double the principal value, one does not add 1/5th. R' Shimon ben Yoḥai says: Neither the additional 1/5th nor the guilt-offering is paid in a case where there is double payment. This concludes the baraita.
קתני מיהת: חומשו עולה לו בכפילו, דברי רבי יעקב. היכי דמי? אילימא דמעיקרא שויא ארבעה ולבסוף שויא ארבעה, חומשו עולה לו בכפילו?!
R' Ḥanina explains: In any event, the baraita teaches: His payment of the additional 1/5th is covered by his double payment; this is the statement of R' Ya’akov. What are the circumstances of this case? If we say that the stolen item was initially worth 4 dinars and ultimately, at the time of trial, was still worth 4 dinars, how could he say: His payment of the additional 1/5th is covered by his double payment?
כפילא ארבעה, וחומשא זוזא! אלא לאו דמעיקרא שויא ארבעה, ולבסוף שויא זוזא, דכפילא זוזא וחומשיה זוזא?
This statement is inaccurate in this case, as the double payment, i.e., the penalty included in the double payment, is 4 dinars, and the additional 1/5th is one dinar. When the Torah states “fifth” it means 1/5th of the total payment of the 1/5th and the principal together, i.e., 1/4th of the principal. For the additional 1/5th to be covered by the double payment, the two must be exactly equal, which is not the case here. Rather, is it not referring to a situation where initially it was worth 4 dinars and at the end it was worth one dinar, as the penalty component of the double payment is one dinar and the additional 1/5th is also one dinar?