share torah logo

Exodus 22:8 - Double restitution for theft?

Exodus 22:8 - שמות 22:8

Hebrew Text

עַל־כָּל־דְּבַר־פֶּשַׁע עַל־שׁוֹר עַל־חֲמוֹר עַל־שֶׂה עַל־שַׂלְמָה עַל־כָּל־אֲבֵדָה אֲשֶׁר יֹאמַר כִּי־הוּא זֶה עַד הָאֱלֹהִים יָבֹא דְּבַר־שְׁנֵיהֶם אֲשֶׁר יַרְשִׁיעֻן אֱלֹהִים יְשַׁלֵּם שְׁנַיִם לְרֵעֵהוּ׃

English Translation

For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for a garment, or for any manner of lost thing, of which one can say, This is it, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double to his neighbour.

Transliteration

Al-kol-devar-pesha al-shor al-chamor al-se al-salma al-kol-aveda asher yomar ki-hu ze ad ha'elohim yavo devar-shneihem asher yarshion elohim yeshalem shnayim lerei'ehu.

Hebrew Leining Text

עַֽל־כׇּל־דְּבַר־פֶּ֡שַׁע עַל־שׁ֡וֹר עַל־חֲ֠מ֠וֹר עַל־שֶׂ֨ה עַל־שַׂלְמָ֜ה עַל־כׇּל־אֲבֵדָ֗ה אֲשֶׁ֤ר יֹאמַר֙ כִּי־ה֣וּא זֶ֔ה עַ֚ד הָֽאֱלֹהִ֔ים יָבֹ֖א דְּבַר־שְׁנֵיהֶ֑ם אֲשֶׁ֤ר יַרְשִׁיעֻן֙ אֱלֹהִ֔ים יְשַׁלֵּ֥ם שְׁנַ֖יִם לְרֵעֵֽהוּ׃ <span class="mam-spi-samekh">{ס}</span>        
עַֽל־כׇּל־דְּבַר־פֶּ֡שַׁע עַל־שׁ֡וֹר עַל־חֲ֠מ֠וֹר עַל־שֶׂ֨ה עַל־שַׂלְמָ֜ה עַל־כׇּל־אֲבֵדָ֗ה אֲשֶׁ֤ר יֹאמַר֙ כִּי־ה֣וּא זֶ֔ה עַ֚ד הָֽאֱלֹהִ֔ים יָבֹ֖א דְּבַר־שְׁנֵיהֶ֑ם אֲשֶׁ֤ר יַרְשִׁיעֻן֙ אֱלֹהִ֔ים יְשַׁלֵּ֥ם שְׁנַ֖יִם לְרֵעֵֽהוּ׃ {ס}        

🎵 Listen to leining

Parasha Commentary

Overview of the Verse

The verse (Shemot 22:8) discusses the laws of restitution for theft or disputed ownership of property. It outlines the judicial process when two parties claim possession of the same item, requiring them to bring their case before Elohim (judges or a Beit Din). The guilty party must pay double restitution to the rightful owner.

Key Terms and Their Meanings

  • עַל־כָּל־דְּבַר־פֶּשַׁע ("For all manner of trespass") – Rashi explains that this refers to any case of denial or false claim regarding a deposit or entrusted item.
  • עַד הָאֱלֹהִים יָבֹא דְּבַר־שְׁנֵיהֶם ("the cause of both parties shall come before the judges") – The Mechilta interprets Elohim here as human judges appointed to adjudicate disputes, not as a reference to Hashem Himself.
  • יְשַׁלֵּם שְׁנַיִם לְרֵעֵהוּ ("he shall pay double to his neighbor") – The Rambam (Hilchot Gezeilah 1:7) explains that this double payment applies specifically to a thief who falsely swears in court, distinguishing it from ordinary theft.

Legal Principles Derived

This verse establishes several halachic principles:

  • Obligation to Restore Double – The thief must repay twice the value of the stolen item, emphasizing the severity of false claims under oath (Rambam, Hilchot To'en veNitan 1:1).
  • Role of Judges – The Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 55) highlights that disputes must be resolved through proper judicial proceedings rather than private judgment.
  • Types of Property – The verse enumerates ox, donkey, sheep, and garments, but the Talmud (Bava Kamma 56b) extends the law to all movable property.

Midrashic Insights

The Midrash Tanchuma (Mishpatim 15) connects this verse to broader ethical teachings, emphasizing that dishonesty in monetary matters undermines trust in society. The requirement to pay double serves as a deterrent against false oaths and reinforces the sanctity of truthful testimony.

Application in Halacha

According to the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 88:1), this law applies when:

  • A defendant denies holding a deposit.
  • The claimant has witnesses or evidence supporting their claim.
  • The defendant later admits to the theft or is proven guilty in court.

The Ketzot HaChoshen adds that the double payment is only enforced if the stolen item still exists in its original form at the time of judgment.

📚 Talmud Citations

This verse is quoted in the Talmud.

📖 Bava Metzia 34b
The verse is discussed in the context of laws regarding the responsibility of a paid guardian (shomer sakhar) and the requirement to pay double for theft, as derived from this verse.
📖 Bava Kamma 63b
The verse is referenced in discussions about the liability for theft and the requirement to pay double restitution, particularly in cases involving animals or garments.
📖 Sanhedrin 3a
The verse is cited in the context of judicial procedures and the role of judges in resolving disputes over lost or stolen property.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What does Exodus 22:8 mean?
A: Exodus 22:8 discusses the laws of restitution for theft or loss. If someone is accused of stealing or misappropriating another's property (like an ox, donkey, sheep, garment, or any lost item), both parties must bring their case before judges (or 'Elohim,' which can refer to human judges or God). If the accused is found guilty, they must repay double the value of the item to the owner.
Q: Why is paying double required for theft in this verse?
A: According to Jewish tradition (as explained in the Talmud, Bava Kamma 63b), paying double serves as both restitution and a penalty to discourage theft. The Torah emphasizes honesty and integrity in financial matters, and this law reinforces the seriousness of taking another's property unlawfully.
Q: What can we learn from Exodus 22:8 about resolving disputes?
A: This verse teaches the importance of fair judgment and due process. Disputes should not be settled privately or through conflict but brought before qualified judges (as Rashi explains, 'Elohim' refers to righteous judges). This ensures justice is served impartially according to Torah law.
Q: Does Exodus 22:8 apply today in Jewish law?
A: Yes, the principles in this verse remain relevant in Halacha (Jewish law). The Talmud and later codifiers like Rambam (Hilchot Geneiva) detail the laws of theft and restitution, including the requirement to repay double in certain cases. However, specific applications may depend on the presence of a proper Jewish court (Beit Din).
Q: Why does the verse list specific items like ox, sheep, and garments?
A: Rashi explains that these examples represent common valuables in ancient times, but the law applies broadly to any lost or stolen item (as stated: 'for any manner of lost thing'). The Torah uses tangible examples to make the law relatable while extending to all forms of property.