Bava Kamma 65A

אין לי אלא ידו, גגו חצירו וקרפיפו מנין? תלמוד לומר: ״אם המצא תמצא״ מכל מקום!

I have derived only a case where the stolen item is found in his hand [yado]. From where do I derive that the same halakha applies if it is found on his roof, in his yard, or in his enclosure [vekarpeifo]? The verse states the repetitive phrase “if the theft should be found [himmatze timmatze],” to indicate that the same halakha applies in any case, i.e., in any location that the stolen item is found.

אם כן, לימא קרא או ״המצא המצא״ או ״תמצא תמצא״; מדשני קרא, שמע מינה תרתי.

The Talmud answers: If so, if this is all the phrase is coming to teach, let the verse state the identical word twice: Himmatze himmatze, or: Timmatze timmatze. From the fact that the verse varied its wording, one may conclude two halakhot from it: That one is liable to pay double payment regardless of where the stolen item was found, and that a thief pays double payment even if he did not take an oath.

גופא ⁠– אמר רב: קרן ⁠– כעין שגנב. תשלומי כפל ותשלומי ארבעה וחמשה ⁠– כשעת העמדה בדין.

§ The Talmud returns to the matter itself. Rav says: When a thief makes his payments, the principal is paid according to the value as of the time when he stole it, whereas the double payment and the fourfold or fivefold payment are calculated according to the value at the time of standing trial.

מאי טעמא דרב? אמר קרא: ״גניבה״ ו״חיים״. אמאי קאמר רחמנא ״חיים״ בגניבה? אחייה לקרן כעין שגנב.

The Talmud asks: What is the reason, i.e., the source, for this ruling of Rav? The Talmud answers: The verse states: “If the theft should be found in his possession alive, whether it is an ox, or a donkey, or a sheep, he should pay double” (Exodus 22:3). Why is God saying “alive [ḥayyim]” in the context of this theft? This juxtaposition serves to teach: When making payment, revive [aḥayah] the principal to the value it had as of the time when he stole it.