Cytowanie Komentarza do Wyjścia 22:6

אין הגונב אחר הגנב – as it is written (Exodus 22:6): “and they are stolen from the man’s house,” and not “from the house of the thief.”

בשלשה – commoners/lay persons, for the Rabbis did not require three specialists, in order not to lock the door before loans, lest the borrower confess and specialists are not found to force him to court, but rather, or one [judge] would be a specialist or [all] three are commoners; but cases of theft and mayhem [require] three specialists, for [the word] אלהים/”God” (which means judges) is written in the section of the guardians in [the Torah portion] of “And these are the statutes” (Exodus, chapter 21 and beyond; specifically, the verses are: Exodus 22:6-8) , and from it we derive three specialists.

wert sein. Nach der von der Halacha rezipierten Ansicht Rab’s (gegen Samuel) muss der abgeleugnete Teil des Klage Objektes, d. i. das Schwurobjekt, zwei Maah wert sein; הטענה ist danach als כפירת טענה (das Abgeleugnete des Klage-Objektes) zu erklären. Das Klage-Objekt im Ganzen maß demnach mindestens zwei Maah und eine Peruta wert sein, damit beim Zugeständnis von einer Peruta noch ein Wert von zwei Maah als Schwurobjekt bleibe. — Jedoch wird, wenn Geräte (mindestens zwei, nach Exod. 22, 6) das Objekt der Klage bilden, auch beim geringsten Geldeswert derselben, dem מודה במקצת oder שומר ein gerichtlicher Eid auferlegt.

From where to we derive - if from an a fortiori argument [from the oath of a sota, the cases] are not comparable, since her oath is entirely due to uncertain claims. But as for extension [of an oath] even to uncertain monetary claims -- his essential [requirement to take an] oath only comes about due to a definite claim, as it is stated: "When any party gives" (Exodus 22:6) ["... the owner of the house shall depose before God and deny laying hands on the other’s property"]. The oath of partners is an ordinance of the Rabbis, since [otherwise partners] would rationalize taking liberties with [the property for which they are responsible], as is stated there (Shevuot 48b:12). Since the fundamental [requirement to take an] oath in monetary cases is only [in cases of] definite claims, [the cases to which an oath may be] extended from them must also be definite claims and not uncertain claims.