Talmud zu Schemot 22:7

¹³Babli 3b. From where that civil cases are heard by three [judges]? The owner shall go to the judge,¹⁴Ex. 22:7. he added here one judge. Before the judge,¹⁵Ex. 22:8. these are two. Whom the judges will find guilty, these are three¹⁶Since the paragraph mentions judge three times., the words of Rebbi Joshia. Rebbi Jonathan said, the first mention introduces the subject; one does not infer anything from introductions¹⁷This is a generally accepted principle (Babli loc. cit.). The expression which introduces a subject always is necessary and cannot be considered additional or extraneous to the subject at hand.. But before the judge, there is one. Whom the judges will find guilty, there are two. No court may be even-numbered,¹⁸The duty of the court is to decide matters based on incomplete information. The possibility of a deadlock would defeat the purpose for which the court was convened. Therefore, no court may be even-numbered. If any of the judges did abstain from voting, the case would have to be tried anew with another judge substituting for the abstaining judge. so one adds another one; this makes three.

It was stated, if it was stolen from the man’s house¹⁶Ex. 22:6.; not from the borrower’s house. If it was stolen from the man’s house; not from the house of the paid keeper or the renter¹⁹The verse speaks of the unpaid keeper, who swears that he did not take it and that he was not negligent but does not pay. The corresponding cases for the paid keeper and the borrower are not mentioned in the verses. The definite article is interpreted to mean that the verse insists that it was stolen from this man’s house; the rule does not apply to others. By the reason explained later it is clear that the borrower cannot swear; he must pay. There is no intrinsic reason in the verse to exempt the paid keeper and the renter. Why are they exempt? In the Babli Bekhorot11a, the verse is read to exclude institutions; cf. Bava qamma7:1 (5d 46), Notes 10 ff.? Since he is obligated to watch it, it is as if it referred to him²⁰There is a reason to extend the rule of the unpaid keeper to the paid one.; for you may say that there are three paragraphs²¹Ex. 22:6–8, 9–11, 13–14. A similar statement in the Babli, Bava meṣi`a94b.. The last one about the borrower, the middle one about the paid keeper and the renter, the first one about the unpaid keeper. The borrower who profits from all pays everything. The paid keeper or the renter, because he profits partially and gives partial profit, swears about part and pays part. The unpaid keeper who does not profit at all swears and leaves. What does he swear? I did not commit anything²²He did not take anything for his personal use and was not criminally negligent.. What is the situation if others know that he did not commit anything? Let us hear from the following: If the thief was found but has nothing with which to pay, may he say to him²³The owner of an object stolen from an unpaid keeper. If he cannot recoup his loss he might be tempted to let the keeper swear in the hope that he might prefer to pay rather than swear., swear to me that you were not thinking to take it? Let us hear from the following: If the thief was not found²⁴Ex. 22:7. If the thief was found, the unpaid keeper is absolved from any oath. Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin15.. Therefore, it he was found he is not liable.