(R. Yochanan): One who claims that it was stolen [and really he stole it], he pays Kefel. If he slaughtered or sold, he does not pay four or five. There [in Bavel], they say that he pays four or five.

(R. Pedas citing R. Hoshayah): [A Beraisa] taught there supports R. Yochanan;

(Beraisa): "Where is my ox?", and he said "it was stolen", and he imposed this oath on him, and he answered Amen, and witnesses testify that he ate it, he pays the principal. If he admitted by himself, he pays the principal, Chomesh and brings an Asham;

Can one eat without Shechitah?! (Surely he slaughtered it, and even so he does not pay four or five!)

Rebuttal (R. Chagai): The case is, someone else slaughtered it.

Note: Even if he himself slaughtered it, he is exempt from a fine unless witnesses saw this! Surely, this was not the support for R. Yochanan.

Question: Where was said [a support for R. Yochanan]?

Answer (Mishnah): If one said to someone in the market "where is my ox?", and he said "it was stolen", and he imposed this oath on him, and he answered Amen [and witnesses testify that he stole and slaughtered or sold], he is liable (he pays four or five);

Inference: This is because he said so to someone in the market, but if he said so to a Shomer, he is exempt! (HAGAHOS R. DINAR - we infer this, for the Mishnah did not teach four or five in the clauses of Shomerim.)

Rebuttal (of support): The Mishnah is when he slaughtered it, and afterwards swore to him. R. Yochanan discusses when he swore to him and afterwards slaughtered it.

Note: We could explain the Gemara to say that R. Yochanan taught a Chidush not found in the Mishnah, that even if he swore first, he is exempt. We explained the Sugya like NO'AM YERUSHALMI, but added to his Perush - PF.

(R. Yochanan): One who found an Aveidah and claims that it was stolen, he is liable [Kefel. The case is, he said]) "where is my ox?", and he said "it was stolen."

(R. Yochanan): One who makes a claim of theft to his friend, he is liable [Kefel] only after he swore.

What is the reason? It says here (a Shomer Chinam who claims Nignav) Shelichus Yad, and it says below (Shomer Sachar) Shelichus Yad. Just like Shelichus Yad below [he pays Kefel] only after a Shevu'ah, also Shelichus Yad here [pays Kefel] only after a Shevu'ah.

(R. Yochanan): If one claimed that it was lost, and swore to him, and afterwards claimed that it was stolen, he is exempt.

Note: We must say that he later swore that it was stolen. R. Yochanan just taught that Kefel is only after he swore!

Question (R. Yochanan): If one swore [falsely] that it was stolen [and is not Chayav Kefel], is he liable for Shevu'as Bituy?

Question: R. Yochanan contradicts himself! There he said that if one claimed that it was lost, and swore to him, and afterwards claimed that it was stolen, he is [totally] exempt, and here he says so? There it is clear to him, and here he is unsure?! (We explained this like RIDVAZ.)

Answer: What was unclear to him, he [later] resolved.

(R. Chiya bar Yosef): If one claimed to his friend that it was stolen, he is liable only if he denied in Beis Din.

Question: What is the case?

If he was obligated to swear to his friend [through Beis Din's ruling], even if he swore outside of Beis Din he is liable!

Answer: Rather, the case is, he sees that they want to [take him to Beis Din and] make him swear [there], and he swore by himself.

(R. Chiyah citing R. Yochanan): [If one swore that it was stolen, he is Chayav Kefel when witnesses come later and testify that the animal] is standing at its feeding trough.

Question (R. Zeira): Did he say that [he is liable only] when it is standing at its trough (he was not Shole'ach Yad), or even when it is standing [there]?

If you will say [only if] it is standing at its trough, this is the same [as R. Yochanan taught above, that if one claimed that it was lost, and swore to him, and afterwards claimed that it was stolen, he is exempt. Since he swore, he acquired it through his Shevu'ah, and it is in his Reshus, so the latter Shevu'ah does not obligate him Kefel. Also here, if he was Shole'ach Yad, it is in his Reshus, so he cannot become Chayav Kefel];

If you will say even if it is standing at its trough, R. Yochanan contradicts himself! There he said that if one claimed that it was lost, and swore to him, and afterwards claimed that it was stolen, he is exempt [for due to his Shevu'ah, it is in his Reshus], and here you say so (he is Chayav Kefel even after Shelichus Yad)!

Rebuttal (R. La): It is unlike [you said, that it is because he acquired it through the Shevu'ah. Rather,] it is as if he fulfilled his admission through the Shevu'ah (there is no further claim against him. This does not apply to Shelichus Yad.)

Question (against R. Zeira - Mishnah): If one said "where is my ox?", and he said "it was stolen", and he imposed this oath on him, and he answered Amen, and witnesses testify that he stole it, he pays Kefel. If he slaughtered or sold it, he pays four or five. If he admitted by himself, he pays the principal, Chomesh and brings an Asham;

Here, once he did Meshichah (it is in his Reshus), it is as if he claimed that it was lost [and acquired it through his Shevu'ah]. From now and onwards it is as if he claims that it was stolen [after swearing that it was lost], and he should be exempt!

Answer: The case is, he swore and afterwards slaughtered (if it was not intact when he swore, he would acquire it through his Shevu'ah).

(Talmidim of R. Chiyah bar Lulaini): [We must say also that] the case is, he slaughtered it when it was crouching. (Had he done Meshichah, he would acquire it through his Shevu'ah).

Question: (How can he be liable four or five?) Is there [liability for] Shechitah without a [previous] theft?!

Answer: It is like Sumchus, who said that even though there is no theft, there is Shechitah and a sale;

(Shmuel): This is when witnesses of theft came, but if witnesses of Shechitah came, he is liable. (If witnesses testified that he stole and slaughtered or sold, and afterwards witnesses were Mezim them, and testified that he stole and slaughtered or sold afterwards, and they were Huzam, Sumchus said that the first witnesses pay Kefel, for if not for them, he could have admitted and obligated himself, to exempt himself from Kefel. The thief pays two or three (four or five, but he receives Kefel from the Zomemin), for an admission [to Shechitah or a sale] would not have exempted himself from the fine, for it does not obligate himself anything. The Zomemim are exempt for this, for he truly slaughtered, and their testimony did not harm him. We explained this like NO'AM YERUSHALMI, Sotah 1:1.)

(Reish Lakish): If he saw witnesses of theft coming, and he said "I stole", since his admission has clout (obligates him), he is exempt [from Kefel].

If he saw witnesses of Shechitah coming, and he said "I slaughtered", since his admission has no significance (does not obligate him, after the witnesses testify), he is liable [Kefel].

Question (R. Zeira): If he saw witnesses of rape coming, and he said "I raped" [what is the law]?

Answer (R. Chaninah): [This depends on the opinions in a] Mishnah (above, 4:4). According to R. Shimon, who says that the primary claim is the fine, it is as if his admission has no significance, and he is liable (the witnesses obligate him even the fine);

Rabanan say that the primary claim is not the fine. It is as if his admission has significance [for Boshes and Pegam], and he is exempt [from the fine].

(Mishnah): If Reuven claimed his deposit from Shimon (a borrower), and Shimon said that it died, and really, it was broken, Nishbah, stolen or lost. Or, he said that it was Nishbah, and really, it died, broke, or was stolen or lost. Or, he said that it was stolen, and really, it died, broke, was Nishbah or lost. Or, he said that it was lost, and really, it died, broke, was Nishbah or stolen or lost...

If Reuven imposed this oath on him, and he answered Amen, he is exempt.

If he said "where is my ox?", and he said "I do not know that what you discuss (you did not deposit with me)!", and really, it died, was broken, Nishbah, stolen or lost, if he imposed this oath on him, and he answered Amen, he is liable.

If he said to a Shomer Sachar or renter "where is my ox?", and he said that it died, and really, it was broken, or Nishbah. Or, he said that it was Nishbah, and really, it died or broke. Or, he said that it broke, and really, it died or was Nishbah. Or, he said that it was stolen, and really, it was lost. Or, he said that it was lost, and really, it was stolen or lost...

If he imposed this oath on him, and he answered Amen, he is exempt.

If [the Shomer Sachar] said that it died, was broken or Nishbah, and really, it was stolen or lost, and he imposed this oath on him, and he answered Amen, he is liable.

If [the Shomer Sachar] said that it was stolen or lost, and really, it died, broke, or was Nishbah [and he accepted an oath], he is exempt.

The general rule is, if he swore [falsely] to be lenient on himself (exempt himself when really, he is liable), he is liable. [If he swore] to be stringent on himself, he is exempt.

(Gemara - Beraisa): [If he swore] not to be lenient or stringent (he did not change his liability), he is exempt.

(Rebbi): Our Mishnah teaches so! If one said to a borrower, Shomer Sachar or renter "where is my ox?", and he said that it died [if he did not change his liability, he is exempt].

Question: [When he must pay,] can [the owner] say to him "come swear to me that you did not intend to steal it"?

Question: (Why should he be able to do so?) In any case he pays!

Answer: We ask whether he can say to him "even if you give to me many [times what I gave to you, I do not accept this.] I want my [deposit] that is with you!"