Talmud zu Schemot 22:8

If he said, I am paying, one may suspect that possibly he took it for himself¹⁷One forces him to swear a rabbinic oath that the article is not in his possession.. If he said, I am swearing, but then he saw that other oaths were added¹⁸Since once a person is required to swear by biblical standards, the opposing party can make him swear on any other claims even if those claims alone would not be sufficient to force an oath: Soṭah 2:6, Notes 166–169. and he said, I am paying, one is suspicious¹⁹The oath required from every non-payor. For rabbinic oaths one cannot force additions; cf. Rosh Šebuot7, end of Section 18 (Alfasi Šebuot 7, # 1186.). Rebbi Yose said, the Torah did not impose an oath on him to restrict him but to ease for him; for if he wants to pay, he shall pay, and if he wants to swear, he shall swear²⁰Ex. 22:7–8. R. Yose denies the possibility of the imposition of a rabbinic oath if there is no case for a biblical oath.. If he had witnesses that it was forcibly stolen²¹Then he does not pay without swearing an oath., to that case refers what Rebbi Eleazar said: If somebody sells his claims of fines to someone else, he did not do anything²²If the trustee pays even though he is not required to swear in order to be freed from payment, he did not acquire the right to claim double restitution from the thief. If the thief is caught, he has to pay double to the owner of the object who then will return to the trustee what the latter had paid and retain the amount of the fine for himself.. If he had witnesses that it was stolen because of negligence, he comes under the category of “he shall pay”²³Ex. 22:8 explicitly obligates the trustee for damages caused by his negligence. In this case, the Mishnah does not apply and there is no statement that the claims were transmitted to the trustee.. If afterwards the stolen object was found, to whom does [the thief] pay? To the first, or to the second, or to both of them?

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.

Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: In any case where two [witnesses] make him liable to pay money, a single witness sets him up for an oath¹⁴In the Babli, 40a, this is a tannaitic statement commented upon by Samuel.. But do not two [witnesses] make him liable for real estate¹⁵Since anything can be decided upon the testimony of two witnesses, possession of real estate can be transferred without documentary proof by the testimony of witnesses. Similarly, real estate can be attached in foreclosure for unpaid fines upon the testimony of two witnesses.? It is a difference since one does not swear about real estate. But do not two [witnesses] make him liable for a fine? There is a difference since one does not swear about a fine. But do not two [witnesses] make him liable for a peruṭah? Is it so? Have we not stated: “A judicial oath is about a claim of two silver coins and the acknowledgment of one peruṭah.” Our Mishnah, when he swears by his own formulation. What (Rebbi)¹⁶A slip of the scribe’s pen; the first generation Samuel only had a medical, not a rabbinic degree. Samuel said, when he swears by the formulation of others. Rav Ḥisda and his group disagree. “A judicial oath”, any judicial oath. There is no difference whether he swears by his own formulation or he swears by the formulation of others, he cannot be liable except for a claim¹⁷It is not clear whether the sentence is incomplete and one should add “of at least two oboloi”, or that only the situation of monetary claim and denial can be adjudicated by judicial oath, to support the opponents of R. Joḥanan in the next paragraph. The interpretation of the statement in the Babli has no relation to the discussion here..