Question (Rami bar Chama): (A thief who pays Kefel does not add a Chomesh.) Does the principal for which one must pay Kefel exempt from the Chomesh, or does the oath exempt from Chomesh?

Question: What is the case?

Answer: Reuven (claimed and) swore that a deposit was stolen; he later swore that it was lost. Witnesses later testified that Reuven had the deposit when he took the first oath, and he admitted that he swore falsely the second time.

Does the principal for which he pays Kefel exempt from the Chomesh?

Or, perhaps only an oath that obligates Kefel exempts from the Chomesh. Since the second oath does not obligate Kefel, he adds a fifth for that oath!

Answer (Rava - Mishnah): If Levi accepted (answered 'Amen' to) an oath that he did not steal Yehudah's ox, and witnesses testified that he ate it, he pays Kefel;

If Levi admitted by himself, he pays principal and Chomesh and brings an Asham.

Here, the witnesses obligate him to pay Kefel, and he adds a Chomesh only if he admits by himself, but not after witnesses testify;

If only an oath that obligates Kefel exempts from the Chomesh, why is he exempt if he admits after witnesses came? Since his oath does not obligate Kefel, he should add a fifth!

Conclusion: Principal for which one pays Kefel exempts from Chomesh.

Question (Ravina): Can one man be liable to pay a Chomesh, and another man Kefel, on the same principal?

Question: What is the case?

Answer: Reuven gave his ox to Shimon and Levi to watch. They (claimed and) swore that it was stolen. Shimon admitted that he swore falsely, and witnesses testified that it was not stolen.

Was the Torah was insistent that one man not pay Kefel and an Chomesh (on one principal), but both may be paid (by different men)?

Or, perhaps the Torah does not obligate Kefel and Chomesh on one principal?

This question is unsettled.

Question (Rav Papa): Can one man be liable to pay two Chomeshim or two Kefelim on one principal?

Question: What is the case?

Answer - part 1 (regarding two fifths): Reuven swore that a deposit was lost, admitted that he swore falsely, and again swore that it was lost, and admitted that also this was false.

Answer - part 2 (regarding two Kefelim): Reuven swore that a deposit was stolen, witnesses testified that he really stole it; he again swore that it was stolen, witnesses testified that he really stole it.

Is the Torah concerned that a man not pay two types of monetary fines (Kefel and an Chomesh) on one principal, but he can pay the same type more than once?

Or, perhaps the Torah does not obligate more than one fine on one principal?

Answer: We can learn from Rava;

(Rava): "Va'Chamishisav (and its fifths) he will add" teaches that many Chomeshim can be added for one principal.

Question: If Reuven claimed his deposit from Shimon, and Shimon swore that it was stolen, then he decided to pay for it (even though he is exempt) and the thief was found, who receives Kefel?

Answer #1 (Abaye): Reuven gets it.

Answer #2 (Rava): Shimon gets it.

Abaye holds that Reuven gets it. Since Shimon did not pay immediately, Reuven does not give Shimon (ownership of the object in order that Shimon should acquire) Kefel (if the thief will be found).

Rava holds that Shimon gets it. Since Shimon paid in the end, Reuven gives him (ownership in order that Shimon should acquire) Kefel.

They argue about how to explain the Mishnah.

(Mishnah): If Levi deposited an animal or Kelim by Yehudah, a Shomer Chinam, and they were lost or stolen, Yehudah could have sworn to be exempt, but he paid and did not want to swear. If the thief is found, he pays Kefel (or four or five, if he slaughtered or sold an ox or Seh) to Yehudah.

If Yehudah swore and did not want to pay, and the thief is found, he pays Kefel (or four or five) to Levi.

Abaye learns from the Reisha. It says that he paid and did not want to swear;

Inference: Had he sworn, even if he paid later, the thief would pay Levi.

Rava learns from the Seifa. It says that he swore, and did not want to pay;

Inference: Had he paid, even though he swore, the thief would pay Yehudah.

Question: The Seifa is unlike Abaye!

Answer (Abaye): It means that if he swore and did not want to pay before swearing, only after swearing, he pays Levi.

Question: The Reisha is unlike Rava!

Answer (Rava): It means that if he swore and did not want to rely on his oath, rather he paid, he pays Yehudah.

Levi claimed his deposit from Yehudah. Yehudah swore, and it became known that Reuven had stolen it. Yehudah claimed from him, and Reuven admitted. Levi claimed from Reuven, and Reuven denied the theft. Witnesses testified that he stole it.

Question: Is Reuven exempt from Kefel because he admitted to Yehudah?

Answer (Rava): If Yehudah swore truthfully (that it was stolen), Reuven is exempt (because Levi still trusts Yehudah, Yehudah was in Levi's place when he claimed the deposit, it is as if Reuven admitted to Levi);

If Yehudah swore falsely (e.g. that it died), Reuven is liable (Levi no longer trusts Yehudah. Yehudah was not in Levi's place when he claimed the deposit, so it is not as if Reuven admitted to Levi.)

Question (Rava): If Yehudah was about to swear falsely, but Levi did not allow him, what is the law? (Is it as if he swore falsely, so Levi does not trust him any longer?)

This question is unsettled.

Levi claimed the deposit from Yehudah, and Yehudah paid. It became known that Reuven had stolen it; Levi claimed from him, and Reuven admitted. Yehudah claimed from Reuven, and Reuven denied the theft. Witnesses testified that he stole it.

Question: Is Reuven exempt from Kefel because he admitted to Levi?

Can Yehudah tell Levi 'since I paid you, you have no further claim on the stolen object (so Reuven's admission to you is meaningless)'?

Or, can Levi say 'just like you acted kindly to me (by paying), I should act kindly for you (to claim from Reuven to return your money, so it was a proper admission)'?

This question is unsettled.

(Abaye): If a deposit was stolen through Ones (the Shomer was not negligent), and the thief was found:

If the Shomer was a Shomer Chinam, he may choose to claim the deposit from the thief, or to swear that it was stolen through Ones;

If he was a Shomer Sachar, he must claim the deposit from the thief. Swearing that it was stolen through Ones will not exempt him.

(Rava): Even a Shomer Chinam must claim the deposit from the thief.

Suggestion: Rava argues with Rav Huna bar Avin.

(Rav Huna bar Avin): If a deposit was stolen through Ones, and the thief was found, if the Shomer was a Shomer Chinam, he may choose to claim the deposit from the thief, or to swear that it was stolen through Ones;

If he was a Shomer Sachar, he must claim the deposit from the thief. Swearing that it was stolen through Ones will not exempt him.

Rejection: No. Rav Huna discusses a Shomer who already swore (but l'Chatchilah, he must claim from the thief).

Question: He said that he may choose to claim the deposit from the thief, or to swear!

Answer: He meant that he may choose to rely on his oath, or to claim the deposit from the thief.

Question (Rabah Zuti): If a deposit was stolen through Ones, and the thief returned it to the Shomer's house, and then it died through negligence, what is the law?

Once it was stolen through Ones, he is not longer a Shomer (even after it is returned, so he is exempt);

Or, perhaps when the thief returns it, he resumes being a Shomer (and he is liable)?

This question is unsettled.

(Mishnah #1): If Reuven was watching a deposit, and he claimed that it was lost and accepted (answered Amen to) an oath to this effect, then witnesses testified that he ate it, he pays principal;

If he admitted that he ate it, he pays principal and Chomesh and brings a Korban Asham.

If he claimed that it was stolen and accepted an oath about this, then witnesses testified that he ate it, he pays Kefel;

If he admitted that he ate it, he pays principal and Chomesh and brings an Asham.

If Reuven stole from his father, swore falsely to him, and his father died, he pays principal and Chomesh to his (Rashi - father's; Tosfos - own) children or brothers, and brings an Asham;

(Really, since he is an heir (if he has no brothers, he is the only heir) of his father, some (or all) of the payments should revert to him. However, he must remove the entire theft (and Chomesh) from his Reshus.) If he does not want (or lacks the money) to pay the share he should inherit, he borrows this amount, and the creditors collect it from his share of the inheritance.