Restoring Stolen Goods and Adding the Fifth After a False Oath

Our Rabbis taught: 'and he shall restore the robbery' - what does Scripture teach by 'that he robbed'? He returns it as it was when he robbed it. From here they said: one who robs and feeds it to his children, they are exempt from paying; if he left it before them, whether grown or minor, they are liable. In the name of Sumkhos they said: the grown are liable, the minors exempt. One who robs from his fellow the worth of a perutah and swears to him must carry it after him even to Media, and he may not give it to his son or his agent, for it is written, 'to him to whom it belongs he shall give it' (Leviticus 5:24); but he may give it to an agent of the court. And if [the owner] died, he returns it to his sons. If he gave him the fifth but not the principal, or pardoned the fifth but not the principal, or pardoned this and that except for a perutah's worth of the principal, he must go after him. If he gave him the principal but not the fifth, or pardoned the principal but not the fifth, or pardoned this and that except for less than a perutah's worth of the principal, he need not go after him. If he gave him the principal and swore to him about the fifth, he pays a fifth upon the fifth until the principal is reduced below a perutah's worth. And so too with a deposit, as it is said (Leviticus 5:21), 'a deposit or a pledge' and so forth - he pays principal and fifth and guilt-offering in silver shekels. It was taught: one who robs his fellow and swears to him and dies, his heirs pay the principal and the fifth and are exempt from the guilt-offering. The heirs are obligated to pay their father's fifth - so the fifth is monetary. And it asks: do the heirs owe the fifth? But it is contrasted: 'And still I might say, when does he not pay the fifth for his father's robbery? When neither he nor his father swore,' and so forth. Rav Nachman said: there is no difficulty - here where he admitted, there where he did not admit. If he did not admit, let him not pay the principal either! And if you say, indeed he does not pay - but from the fact that the discussion returns to the fifth, it implies that he pays the principal. And further it was taught, 'And still I might say, when does he pay the principal for his father's robbery? When both he and his father swore, his father and not he, he and not his father, neither he nor his father - from where? Scripture teaches.' Rav Huna sat and said this teaching, and Rabbah his son said to him: did the Master say 'Scripture teaches' [yesh talmud] or 'they are paid' [yishtalmu]? He said to him: I said 'Scripture teaches,' and I say it from the amplification of the verses. But then what is 'he did not admit'? His father did not admit and his son admitted. Then let the son be liable for the fifth upon his own oath! They say: this is where the stolen object no longer exists. If so, let him not pay the principal either! It is not needed except where there is property as surety. And what of it, since this is an oral loan, which is collected neither from the heirs nor from the buyers? This is where he stood in judgment. If so, let him pay the fifth too! Because one does not pay the fifth for denying a lien on land. Rava said: with what are we dealing here? Such as where his father's saddlebag was deposited in the hands of others - he pays the principal, for it exists; he does not pay the fifth, for when he swore he swore truthfully, since he did not know. As for one who sends his hand against a deposit: Beit Shammai say he is penalized for loss and for gain; Beit Hillel say according to the value at the time of misappropriation; Rabbi Akiva says according to the time of the claim. They differ regarding the increase in value of the stolen object: Beit Shammai hold the increase belongs to the robbed, and Beit Hillel hold the increase belongs to the robber. This is the same as the dispute of these Tannaim, as it was taught: one who robs a ewe, shears it, and it gives birth, pays it and its shearings and its offspring - the words of Rabbi Meir; Rabbi Yehuda says the stolen object returns in its original state. This too is precise, for it teaches 'penalized for loss and for gain.' And Rabbi Akiva concedes where there are witnesses, for the verse says, 'to him to whom it belongs he shall give it on the day of his guilt' (Leviticus 5:24), and since there are witnesses, from that hour the guilt is upon him. Rabbi said: Rabbi Akiva differed even where there are witnesses, for the verse says, 'to him to whom it belongs he shall give it on the day of his guilt' - and it is the court that imposes the guilt upon him. Rava said: the law is according to Beit Hillel. 'He swears about it falsely and pays' - he pays only after the oath. But is this not a logical inference? If one who pleads the claim of a thief, who pays double, pays only after the oath, then this one, who does not pay double, surely should pay only after the oath. No: if you have said this regarding the pleader of a thief's claim, who does not pay the fifth and the guilt-offering, will you say it regarding this one, who does pay the fifth and the guilt-offering - since he pays the fifth and the guilt-offering, let him pay before the oath and after the oath; therefore Scripture says 'about it, and pays' - he pays only after the oath. 'And he pays it' - it he pays, and he does not pay double. But is this not a logical inference? If the pleader of a thief's claim, who does not pay the fifth and the guilt-offering, pays double, then this one, who does pay the fifth and the guilt-offering, surely should pay double; therefore Scripture says 'and he pays it' - it he pays, and he does not pay double. Shall I exclude double payment but not exclude fourfold and fivefold? Scripture says 'in its principal' - in its principal he pays, and he does not pay double, nor fourfold and fivefold. There is an inference a fortiori for the pleader of a thief's claim, that he should pay the fifth and the guilt-offering: if this one, who does not pay double, pays the fifth and the guilt-offering, then the pleader of a thief's claim, who pays double, surely should pay the fifth and the guilt-offering; therefore Scripture says, 'in its principal and its fifth he shall add upon it' - the one who pays the principal adds a fifth, and the one who pays double or fourfold and fivefold does not add a fifth. 'And its fifth' - this teaches that he adds a fifth upon the fifth until the principal is reduced below a perutah's worth. 'He shall add upon it' - that it and its fifth shall be five [the fifth being one-fifth of the whole].