Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 7.1

משנה: מְרוּבָּה מִידַּת תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל מִמִּידַּת תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה שֶׁמִּידַּת תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל נוֹהֶגֶת בֵּין בְּדָבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ רוּחַ חַיִּים וּבְדָבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ רוּחַ חַיִּים. וּמִידַּת תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה אֵינָהּ נוֹהֶגֶת אֶלָּא בְשׁוֹר וָשֶׂה בִלְבַד שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כִּי יִגְנֹב אִישׁ שׁוֹר אוֹ שֶׂה וגו׳. אֵין הַגּוֹנֵב אַחַר הַגַּנָּב מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל וְלֹא הַטּוֹבֵחַ וְלֹא הַמּוֹכֵר אַחַר הַגַּנָּב מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה.

MISHNAH: The obligation to make double restitution 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,” 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.

הלכה: מְרוּבָּה מִידַּת תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל כול׳. מְנָן תֵּיתִי לֵיהּ. מֵאִם הִמָּצֵא תִמָּצֵא וגו׳. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שׁוֹר וַחֲמוֹר וָשֶׂה. כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר חַיִים. לְרַבּוֹת כָּל בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים. הַגְּנֵיבָה. לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַמִּיטַּלְטְלִין. וְלָמָּה שׁוֹר וַחֲמוֹר וָשֶׂה. אִם דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ הֲנָיָיה לַמִּזְבֵּחַ נִיתְנֵי שׁוֹר וָשֶׂה. [ ] תַּנֵּי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. יָצְאוּ קַרְקָעוֹת שֶׁאֵין מִיטַּלְטְלִין. יָצְאוּ עֲבָדִים שֶׁאֵין לָךְ בָּהֶן אֶלָּא תַשְׁמִישׁ. יָצְאוּ שְׁטָרוֹת שֶׁאֵין לָךְ בָּהֶן אֶלָּא רְאָיָיה.

HALAKHAH: “The obligation to make double restitution is more frequent,” etc. From where does he get this? From “if being found it is found”. This includes not only ox, or donkey, or sheep: Since He says “alive”, it includes all living beings. “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”. [If it were restricted to anything useful for the priests, one should have stated “ox and donkey.] 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 proof.

רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ שָׁאַל. לָמָּה לֹא שָׁנִינוּ שֶׁמִּידַּת תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל נוֹהֶגֶת בְּטוֹעֵן טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב בַּשׁוּתָפִין. מַה שֶׁאֵין כֵּן בְּתַשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה.

Rebbi Abbahu asked: Why did we not state that double restitution is due if a claim of theft is made in a partnership, where quadruple or quintuple restitution does not apply?

תַּנֵּי. וְגוּנָּב מִבֵּית הָאִישׁ. וְלֹא מִבֵּית הָאִשָּׁה. כָּל עַצְמוֹ אֵין כָּתוּב רֵעֵהוּ אֶלָּא בְשׁוֹאֵל. וְתֵימַר הָכֵין. אֵין הַגּוֹנֵב אַחַר הַגַּנָּב מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי [כֶפֶל וְלֹא הַטּוֹבֵחַ וְלֹא הַמּוֹכֵר מֵאַחַר הַגַּנָּב מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי] אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. גָּנַב וְנִגְנְבָה מִמֶּנּוּ [וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִמְצֵאת הַגְּנֵיבָה לְמִי הוּא מְשַׁלֵּם. לָרִאשׁוֹן לַשֵּׁנִי לִשְׁנֵיהֶם. גָּנַב וְנִגְנְבָה מִמֶּנּוּ] וְתָפְשׂוֹ בְּעָלִים אֶת הַשֵּׁינִי וְנִשְׁבַּע לָהֶן. אִין תֵּימַר. מוֹצִיאִין מִן הַשֵּׁינִי. מֵבִיא קָרְבָּן עַל הַשְּׁבוּעָה. אִין תֵּימַר. אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִן הַשֵּׁינִי. אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא קָרְבָּן שְׁבוּעָה. גָּנַב וְנִגְנְבָה מִמֶּנּוּ וְנִמְלַךְ הַשֵּׁינִי לְהַחֲזִיר. אִין תֵּימַר. יַחֲזִיר לַבְּעָלִים. פְּעָמִים שֶׁאֵין מוֹדִיעִין לַגַּנָּב. אִין תֵּימַר. יַחֲזִיר לַגַּנָּב. פְּעָמִים שֶׁאֵין מוֹדִיעִים לַבְּעָלִים. כֵּיצַד יַעֲשֶׂה. יַחֲזִיר לַבְּעָלִים בִּפְנֵי גַנָּב.

It was stated: “It was stolen from the man’s house”, but not from the woman’s house? Is not “his neighbor” only written in respect of the borrower? 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] quadruple or quintuple restitution. If something was stolen which then was stolen from him; [when in the end the stolen object was found, to whom does he pay? To the first owner, to the second, to both of them? If something was stolen which then was stolen from him]; the owners apprehended the second thief who swore to 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 him and the second thief decides to return it, if you say that he has to return it to the owners, they might not inform the first thief. If you say that he has to return it to the first thief, that one might not inform the owners. What does he have to do? He returns it to the owners in the presence of the thief.