And the Rabbis say: It is written concerning a bailee who falsely claims innocence with regard to a deposit entrusted to him: “He shall restore it according to its principal, and shall 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 one-fifth, 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 one-fifth. Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: Neither the additional one-fifth nor the guilt-offering is paid in a case where there is double payment. This concludes the baraita.

Rabbi Ḥanina explains: In any event, the baraita teaches: His payment of the additional one-fifth is covered by his double payment; this is the statement of Rabbi Ya’akov. What are the circumstances of this case? If we say that the stolen item was initially worth four dinars and ultimately, at the time of trial, was still worth four dinars, how could he say: His payment of the additional one-fifth is covered by his double payment?

This statement is inaccurate in this case, as the double payment, i.e., the penalty included in the double payment, is four dinars, and the additional one-fifth is one dinar. When the Torah states “fifth” it means one-fifth of the total payment of the one-fifth and the principal together, i.e., one-quarter of the principal. For the additional one-fifth 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 four dinars and at the end it was worth one dinar, as the penalty component of the double payment is one dinar and the additional one-fifth is also one dinar?

Apparently, the principal, as well as the additional one-fifth, is paid according to the value as of the time when he stole, whereas the double payment and the fourfold or fivefold payment is according to the value at the time of standing trial, as claimed by Rav.

The Gemara refutes this analysis. Rava said: Actually, the baraita could be referring to a case in which initially it was worth four dinars and now, at the time of trial, it is also worth four dinars. And as for what is difficult with this case, namely that the double payment is four dinars and the additional one-fifth is one dinar, this problem can be resolved as follows: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where the bailee took an oath that the deposit was stolen from him, and he again took the same oath, and so on four times, and after each oath he admitted afterward that he had lied. And the Torah said: “And shall add its fifth part [ḥamishitav] to it” (Leviticus 5:24).

Rava continues: The term ḥamishitav is in the plural, which indicates that the Torah included the possibility of many payments of an additional one-fifth for a single principal. In other words, each time the bailee takes a false oath he becomes obligated to pay an additional one-fifth, despite the fact that each oath concerns the same item. Since he did so four times, and the one-fifth is actually one-quarter of the principal, the total amount of payments of the additional one-fifth is equal to the principal, which is the same as the penalty component of the double payment.

§ The Master said in the baraita: And the Sages say: “He shall restore it according to its principal, and shall add its fifth part to it” (Leviticus 5:24). This verse teaches that for monetary restitution that is paid precisely according to the principal, one adds one-fifth. But for monetary restitution that is not paid precisely according to the principal, one does not add one-fifth. The Gemara infers: He does not add one-fifth, but he is obligated to bring a guilt-offering.

The Gemara asks: What is different about the additional one-fifth in that case, that he does not have to pay it? As it is written: “He shall restore it according to its principal, and shall add its fifth part to it.” This indicates that the additional one-fifth is linked to the payment of the precise amount of the principal amount. If so, with regard to the guilt offering as well, he should not have to pay, i.e., bring it, as it is written: “He shall restore it according to its principal, and shall add its fifth part to it…and his guilt-offering [ve’et ashamo] he shall bring to the Lord” (Leviticus 5:24–25). The verse links the guilt-offering to the payment of the precise amount of the principal, just like it does the additional one-fifth.

The Gemara answers: The Sages would say to you in response: The superfluous word “et” in the phrase “and his guilt offering [ve’et ashamo]” divides the verse. Therefore, only the additional one-fifth payment, but not the guilt-offering, is linked to the payment of the precise amount of the principal.

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai, who maintains that this bailee is exempt from a guilt-offering as well, how would he respond to the Sages’ argument concerning “et”? He would point out that the term in question is actually “ve’et,” consisting of the word et preceded by the letter vav, meaning “and.” The conjunction joins the clauses of the verse. Therefore, both the additional one-fifth payment and the guilt-offering are linked to the payment of the precise amount of the principal. And the Rabbis would respond to Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai’s claim and say to you: If the Torah had intended that the two issues should be joined together, let the Merciful One write neither the vav nor “et.”

And Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai could have said to you in response to this argument: It is not possible for the verse to have not written “et,” as this term is necessary to separate between property belonging to the Most High, i.e., the guilt-offering, and non-sacred property, i.e., that of a Jew. Therefore, as the verse had to use “et” to indicate this difference, the vav comes and joins the clauses of the verse.

§ The Gemara discusses other cases in which an object undergoes a change after it has been stolen. Rabbi Ile’a says: If one stole a lamb and it subsequently became a ram, or if he stole a calf and it subsequently became a bull, the stolen item has undergone a change while in the thief’s possession, and he has therefore acquired it as his own property. Consequently, his obligation of restitution consists of monetary payment rather than giving back the stolen item itself. If he subsequently slaughtered or sold the animal, it is in effect his own animal that he slaughters, or it is his own animal that he sells, and he is not obligated in the fourfold or fivefold payment.

Rabbi Ḥanina raised an objection to Rabbi Ile’a from a baraita: If one stole a lamb and it subsequently became a ram, of if he stole a calf and it subsequently became a bull, he pays the double payment and the fourfold or fivefold payment according to the animal’s value as of the time when he stole it. And if it enters your mind that in a case of this kind the thief has acquired the animal as his own property by virtue of the physical change the animal underwent when it matured, why does he pay the fourfold or fivefold payment? After all, it is his own animal that he slaughters, or it is his own animal that he sells.

Rabbi Ile’a said to him: Rather, what would you conclude from the baraita? That this physical change in the stolen animal does not serve to acquire it for the thief and render it his property? If so, why should he pay according to the animal’s value as of the time when he stole it? Let him pay according to the animal’s value now, i.e., at the time of the slaughter or sale.

Rabbi Ḥanina said to him: This is the reason that he does not pay in accordance with the animal’s value now: It is because the thief can say to the animal’s owner: Did I steal a bull from you, or: Did I steal a ram from you? No; I stole only a calf or a lamb, and therefore I will pay you the value of the animal when I stole it. Rabbi Ile’a said to Rabbi Ḥanina: May the Merciful One save us from this opinion of yours! Rabbi Ḥanina said back to him: On the contrary, may the Merciful One save us from your opinion!

Rabbi Zeira objects to this: But even if an animal’s natural growth is not considered a physical change, let the thief acquire it through its change in name, i.e., its change of classification, as the animal was originally called a calf or a lamb and now it is considered a bull or ram.

Rava says: There is in fact no change in name here, as even a day-old bull is called a bull, and even a day-old ram is called a ram. A day-old bull is called a bull, as it is written: “When a bull, or a sheep, or a goat is born” (Leviticus 22:27).

A day-old ram is called a ram, as can be derived from Jacob’s statement to Laban, as it is written: “And the rams of your flock I have not eaten” (Genesis 31:38). Now, did Jacob mean that he did not eat any of Laban’s rams, but younger lambs he did eat? This is certainly not the meaning of this verse, as this would mean he was a thief. Rather, must one not conclude from this verse that a day-old ram is called a ram?

In any case, the baraita cited earlier by Rabbi Ḥanina is difficult for the opinion of Rabbi Ile’a, as it states that the thief must pay the fourfold or fivefold payment despite the fact that the slaughter or sale of the animal took place after it matured from a calf to a bull or from a lamb to a ram. To resolve the difficulty, Rav Sheshet said: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, who say: An item, even if it has undergone a physical change, remains in its place, i.e., a stolen item remains in the possession of its owner, and a thief does not acquire it even if it undergoes a change.

As it is taught in a baraita: If one gave wheat to a prostitute for her payment, i.e., the hire of her services, and she made the wheat into flour; or if he gave her olives and she made them into oil; or if he gave her grapes and she made them into wine, it is taught in one baraita that it is prohibited to bring these products as an offering in the Temple, in accordance with the verse: “You shall not bring the hire of a harlot…into the house of the Lord your God for any vow” (Deuteronomy 23:19). And it is taught in one baraita that these products are permitted, as the physical change renders them into new items. And Rav Yosef says that Guryon of Asporak teaches in a baraita: Beit Shammai prohibit these products and Beit Hillel permit them. If so, these two baraitot reflect a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel.

The Gemara clarifies the source of these two opinions. What is the reason of Beit Shammai for prohibiting these products? As it is written: “You shall not bring the hire of a harlot, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord your God for any vow; for even both of these are an abomination to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 23:19). The apparently superfluous word “even” serves to include their changed status. And Beit Hillel, who permit these items after they have undergone a physical change, maintain that the term “these” in the phrase “both of these” teaches that this prohibition applies only to the original items, but not to their changed form.

And Beit Shammai would reply: That term,