Reference for Bava Kamma 223:15

אמר שלו הוא תובע א"ל והא מייתינא סהדי דאחזקי ביה בחיי דאבוה א"ל וכי מקבלין עדים

for he had already become liable for the theft<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So far as double payment is concerned, in accordance with ibid, XXII, 3. ');">²⁶</span> prior to his having committed the sin of violating the Sabbath<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since he had already become liable for double payment at the time of the theft, the additional threefold payment which is purely of the nature of a fine is according to this view not affected by the fact that at the time of the slaughter he was committing a capital offence, as also explained in Keth. 34b. ');">²⁷</span> but if he had a cow that was borrowed and slaughtered it on the Sabbath, he would be exempt,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From civil liability. ');">²⁸</span> for in this case the crime of [violating the] Sabbath and the crime of theft were committed simultaneously.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., at the time of the slaughter when he had to become liable also for the Principal which is a purely civil obligation and which must therefore be merged in the criminal charge; v. also supra p. 407. ');">²⁹</span> Our Rabbis taught: <i>He shall restore the misappropriated article which he took violently away.</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 23. ');">³⁰</span> What is the point of the words 'which he took violently away'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is this not redundant? ');">³¹</span> Restoration should be made so long as it is intact as it was at the time when he took it violently away. Hence it was laid down: If one misappropriated [foodstuff] and fed his children they would not be liable to repay.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the foodstuff was no longer intact. ');">³²</span> If, however, he left it to them [intact], whether they were adults or minors, they would be liable; Symmachus, however, was quoted as having ruled that [only] adults would be liable but minors would be exempt. The son<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who was a minor. ');">³³</span> of R. Jeremiah's father-in-law [once] bolted the door in the face of R. Jeremiah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who was desirous of taking possession of premises that belonged to his father-in-law. ');">³⁴</span> The latter thereupon came to complain about this to R. Abin,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' MS.M. 'R. Abba'. ');">³⁵</span> who however said to him: 'Was he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the son of the father-in-law. ');">³⁶</span> not merely asserting his right to his own?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with Num. XXVII, 8. ');">³⁷</span> But R. Jeremiah said to him: 'I can bring witnesses to testify that I took possession of the premises during the lifetime of the father.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who disposed of them to me; cf. B.B. III, 3. ');">³⁸</span> To which the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Abin or R. Abba. ');">³⁹</span> replied: 'Can the evidence of witnesses be accepted

Jastrow