Mga Sanggunian sa Talmud para sa Exodo 22:3: Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma, Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia, Sanhedrin & Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin

MISHNAH: The obligation to make double restitution¹The general punishment of a thief, Ex. 22:3,8. is more frequent than that of paying quadruple or quintuple restitution since the obligation to make double restitution applies both to living things and to inanimate objects; but the obligation of paying quadruple or quintuple restitution only applies to oxen and sheep, as it is said: “If a man steal an ox or a sheep,²Ex. 21:37 decrees quintuple payment for stolen cattle sold or slaughtered by the thief and quadruple payment for stolen sheep or goats.” etc. He who steals from a thief does not pay double restitution, nor does the one who slaughters or sells after a thief pay quadruple or quintuple restitution.

HALAKHAH: “The obligation to make double restitution is more frequent,” etc. From where does he get this? From “if being found it is found³Ex. 22:3: “If the stolen goods being found arc found alive in his hand, be it ox, or donkey, or sheep, doubly shall he pay.” Since in 21:37 quadruple or quintuple restitution was ordered for selling or slaughtering stolen cattle or sheep, the mention of “donkey” extends the set of objects subject to double restitution beyond that subject to multiple restitution.”. This includes not only ox, or donkey, or sheep: Since He says “alive”, it includes all living beings⁴Babli 83b, Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin 13, Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai p. 194.. “The stolen goods”, to include movables. Why “ox, or donkey, or sheep”? If it were restricted to anything useful for the altar, one should have stated “ox and sheep”⁵Since a donkey is an impure animal excluded from the altar, its mention declares the law to be a strictly profane matter.. [If it were restricted to anything useful for the priests, one should have stated “ox and donkey.]⁶Addition of E, confirmed by a Genizah fragment. At first look, the argument seems to prove that double restitution be required only for animals whose firstborn are either given to the Cohen (cattle and sheep, Ex. 34:19), or for which a substitute is given to the Cohen (donkeys, Ex. 34:20,13:13). The extended arguments in the Babli, 64a, and even more so in Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai, p. 194, note that the explicit mention of “stolen goods” shows that the list is incomplete and, therefore, no restriction is intended.. Rebbi Ismael stated: It excludes real estate which is not movable; it excludes slaves from whom you only have service; it excludes documents which only are for proof⁷Babli 64b; for these only simple restitution is required. Documents which prove a claim do not in themselves represent money’s worth..

HALAKHAH: “If one deposited an animal or vessels with another,” etc. From where does he bring this⁷That the fine has to be paid to the trustee if the latter had refused to swear.? “If the stolen object be found in his hand⁸Ex. 22:3: “If the stolen object be found in his hand … double he shall pay.”.” Do we not know that if the thief is found that he has to pay double⁹Since this is explicit in Ex. 22:6 (for money or vessels), why does it have to be stated in v. 3 for livestock?? Why does the verse say, “double he shall pay”? If the verse is not needed for the case¹⁰If the objects were stolen from their owner; Ex. 21:37–22:3., use it for the following subject¹¹If they were stolen from the unpaid trustee, Ex. 22:6–8.. Rebbi [ ]¹²The name of an Amora is missing here. The discussion cannot be between Rebbi and the Tanna R. Jehudah (bar Ilai) since Rebbi was a student of R. Jehudah’s son and never used Aramaic in learned discussions. E reads “Rav Naḥman”. S. Lieberman suggests that he might be R. Naḥman from Jaffa [Gen. r. 53(4)], one of the rabbis of Caesarea. went to the “term”^12*The “term” is the twice-yearly period of public lectures. of Rebbi Yudan and asked this question before him. He answered, refer to what is stated afterwards: “If the other had sworn and did not pay, in case the thief was found, he pays double restitution; if he had slaughtered or sold it, he pays quadruple or quintuple restitution. To whom does he pay? To the owner of the deposit.” Should he not pay to the person with whom it was deposited¹³Since one has to assume that the thief has to pay to the person from whom he stole. Then the trustee would have to pay the restitution to the object’s owner but could retain the fine for himself.? Rebbi Nasa in the name of Rebbi Jonah: “Alive, double he shall pay¹⁴Ex. 22:3..” To the place where the capital goes, there the double fine goes¹⁵Since it says “double”, not “he has to pay the value of the theft and then a fine in an equal amount”, it follows that double restitution is one payment to one recipient.. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Eleazar; Rebbi Nasa adds in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Not only when he paid, but even when he stated his willingness to pay it is as if he had paid¹⁶Babli 34a,37a. Since by necessity the transaction between owner and trustee happened before the thief was apprehended, when neither one of the two were in possession, the right to ownership is transferred by agreement, rather than by actual payment..