R. Yochanan/ R. Elazar/ R. Nasa added from R. Yosi ben Chanina: Not only if the watchman actually paid, but even if he accepted to pay, it is as if he paid (and he receives the double payment).

If a watchman said that he is paying (and he does not wish to swear) we are nevertheless concerned that he might have used the item for his own personal use (and we require him to make an oath on everything else).

If he said, "I swear'' and he saw that they were going to add other Shevuos to his oath, so he retracted and said that he will pay instead...

R. Yosi: The Torah only obligated an oath to be lenient but not to be stringent, that if he wishes to pay, he can pay; if he wishes to swear, he can swear!

If the watchman had witnesses that it was accidentally stolen, this is the case about which R. Elazar said, "One who sells his 'penalties' has not done anything. (Since he was exempt from paying because of the witnesses, even if he volunteered to pay back the owner for the theft, he does not receive the rights to the double pay if the thief is found.)

Question: If he had witnesses that it was stolen because of negligence and he paid for it, it is included in the case of 'he shall pay'. Therefore, if afterwards the stolen item was found, who must he pay - the first one, the second one or both of them?(The Gemara does not answer the question.)