Reference for Bava Kamma 128:21

והאי אם המצא להכי הוא דאתא הא מיבעי ליה לכדתניא ידו

with a bailee [falsely] alleging theft, so that the liability of a thief himself to pay double payment is thus derived from the text '<i>if the thief be found'</i>, how is the text '<i>If to be found it be found'</i> etc. to be expounded? — He may employ it for teaching the view expressed by Raba b. Ahilai; for Raba b. Ahilai said:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 75a. ');">¹⁹</span> What was the reason of Rab who maintained that a defendant admitting an offence for which the penalty is a fine would [even] where witnesses subsequently appeared still be exempt? As it is written: 'If to be found it be found' implying that if at the very outset it is found by witnesses then it will 'be' [considered] 'found' in the consideration of the Judges, excepting thus a case where it was the defendant who incriminated himself. Now again, according to the view that both verses deal with a bailee [falsely] advancing a plea of theft, in which case the text 'If to be found it be found' is employed to teach that there is double payment in the case of a thief himself, whence [in Scripture] do we derive the rule regarding a defendant incriminating himself? — From the text, 'Whom the judges shall condemn'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 8. ');">²⁰</span> [which implies], 'but not him who condemns himself.' But according to the view that one verse deals with a thief and the other with a bailee [falsely] advancing a plea of theft and that the text of 'if to be found it be found' is to introduce the law where the defendant incriminates himself, how could the text, 'whom the judges shall condemn', be expounded? — He might say to you: That text was in the first instance employed to imply that a defendant admitting [an offence entailing] a fine [without witnesses subsequently appearing] would be exempt;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [While the other verse is to extend the exemption to the case where witnesses do subsequently appear. Had there been one verse only available, the exemption would have been limited to the former only.] ');">²¹</span> whereas the other view, that both of the verses deal with a bailee [falsely] advancing a plea of theft holds that a defendant admitting [an offence entailing] a fine for which witnesses subsequently appear is liable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As indeed maintained by Samuel, infra 75a. ');">²²</span> According to the view that one verse<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 374, n. 8. ');">²³</span> deals with a thief and the other with a bailee [falsely] advancing a plea of theft, so that the case of a thief is derived from the verse there,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'If the thief be found'. ');">²⁴</span> we have no difficulty with the text 'if to be found it be found', which is employed as a basis for the statement of Raba b. Ahilai, but why do I require all these specifications?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Since the exclusion of 'real estate, slaves and bills' is already provided for in the verse, For all manner of trespass, etc.; v. supra p. 364.] ');">²⁵</span> — For the reason taught at the school of R. Ishmael,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sot. 3a; Shebu. 19a. ');">²⁶</span> that any section written in Scripture and then repeated is repeated only for the sake of a new point that is added to it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the exclusion of self-admission in case of a fine, as supra.] ');">²⁷</span> But why not say that even the thief himself should be subject to double payment only after having taken an oath falsely?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the law in this case is derived from the section dealing with the unpaid bailee who is not subject to pay double unless where he first took a false oath on the plea of alleged theft. ');">²⁸</span> — Let not this enter your mind, for it was taught: 'R. Jacob says, He shall pay double<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 3. ');">²⁹</span> [even] where he took no oath. Why not rather say only where he took a false oath?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the law in this case is derived from the section dealing with the unpaid bailee who is not subject to pay double unless where he first took a false oath on the plea of alleged theft. ');">²⁸</span> You can safely say that this could not be so.' Why could this not be so? — Said Abaye: For the Divine Law should then not have written 'he shall pay double' in the case of a thief, as this would have been derived by an <i>a fortiori</i> from the law applicable to a bailee falsely advancing a plea of theft: If a bailee falsely advancing a plea of theft, into whose hands the article had come lawfully, is ordered by Scripture to pay twice, should this not apply all the more strongly in the case of the thief himself, into whose hands the article came unlawfully? Why then did Scripture say 'He shall pay double' in the case of a thief himself, unless to imply liability even in the absence of an oath! But how could this [text] <i>'If to be found it be found'</i> be employed to teach this?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., any of the above implications. ');">³⁰</span> Is it not required for what was taught: <i>'his hand'</i>:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 3. ');">³¹</span>

Jastrow