Yerushalmi Bava Kamma 7:1 ירושלמי בבא קמא ז׳:א׳

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..

Rebbi Abbahu asked: Why did we not state that double restitution is due if a claim of theft is made in a partnership⁸In any trust relation, the person making a false claim that something was stolen which he himself took has to make double restitution, Ex. 22:8., where quadruple or quintuple restitution does not apply⁹The Babli quotes R. Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of R. Joḥanan that quadruple or quintuple restitution applies in case of a fraudulent claim of theft, 62b.?

It was stated: “It was stolen from the man’s house”¹⁰Ex. 22:6, speaking of the responsibilities of the unpaid trustee. (Different baraitot explaining the verse are in Šebuot 8:1, fol. 38b). The verse ends: If the thief is found he has to make double restitution., but not from the woman’s house¹¹Since this interpretation does not make sense, it is natural to read the verse meaning that the thief stealing from the trustee has to pay double but the thief stealing from the thief does not. In the Babli, Bekhorot 11a, the expression is read to exclude stealing from public property from double restitution.? Is not “his neighbor” only written in respect of the borrower¹²Ex. 22:13. In fact, “his neighbor” is also written for the paid trustee, Ex. 22:9. In all these cases, it is emphasized that one only deals with the principal, not that anything was stolen from a thief. E reads: “Only the borrower is called neighbor.”? But one has to say that “he who steals from a thief does not pay [double restitution, nor does the one who slaughters or sells after a thief pay]¹³This is a quote from the Mishnah, complete only in E. In the Genizah fragment, after the first few words the rest is indicated by “etc.” In the Leiden ms. it is missing; the scribe skipped from תשלומי to תשלומי. quadruple or quintuple restitution. If something was stolen which then was stolen from him; ¹⁴Addtion from E supported by the Genizah fragment. It is again missing in L because the scribe omitted the text between two identical expressions.[when in the end the stolen object was found, to whom does he pay? To the first owner, to the second¹⁵The thief., to both of them¹⁶The answer is given at the end of the paragraph.? If something was stolen which then was stolen from him¹⁵The thief.]; the owners apprehended the second thief who swore to them¹⁷He swore falsely that he did not steal the object from them. If the owners can recover the object from the second thief, he swore falsely and has to bring a reparation sacrifice as described in Lev. 5:1–13. But if the owners can only demand payment of the object’s worth, he did not swear falsely since he did not steal from them.. If you say that one takes it away from the second, he has to bring a sacrifice for the oath. If you say that one does not take it away from the second, he does not have to bring a sacrifice for his oath. If something was stolen which then was stolen from him¹⁵The thief. and the second thief decides to return it¹⁸Who also will confess from whom he took the object., if you say that he has to return it to the owners, they might not inform the first thief¹⁹That he has to pay simple restitution since the object already was returned.. If you say that he has to return it to the first thief, that one might not inform the owners²⁰That he owes them double restitution.. What does he have to do? He returns it to the owners in the presence of the thief.