Sanhedrin 3B

שאינו משתלם בראש הוא, תנא נמי חצי נזק, דממון שאינו משתלם בראש הוא. ואיידי דקא בעי למיתנא חצי נזק, תנא נמי נזק.

that is not paid according to its value, meaning that the payment is not equal to the cost of the damage but is actually more than that amount, he also taught the halakha with regard to payment of half the cost of the damage, which is also money that is not paid according to its value, as he pays less than the full cost of the damage. And since he needs to teach the halakha with regard to payment of half the cost of the damage, he also taught the halakha with regard to payment of the full cost of the damage.

שלשה מנלן? דתנו רבנן: ״ונקרב בעל הבית אל האלהים״⁠ – הרי כאן אחד, ״עד האלהים יבא דבר שניהם״⁠ – הרי כאן שנים, ״אשר ירשיען אלהים״⁠ – הרי כאן שלשה, דברי רבי יאשיה.

§ The Talmud asks: From where do we derive the fundamental requirement for 3 judges? The Talmud answers: This is as A baraita states: The verse states: “The owner of the house should come near the court, to see whether he has not put his hand upon his neighbor’s property” (Exodus 22:7), so there is one judge here. The following verse states: “The cause of both parties should come before the court,” so there are two judges here. And that verse concludes: “He whom the court should condemn should pay double to his neighbor,” so there are 3 judges here, corresponding to the 3 mentions of the term “the court.” This is the statement of R' Yoshiya.

רבי יונתן אומר: ראשון תחילה נאמר, ואין דורשין תחילות. אלא ״עד האלהים יבא דבר שניהם״⁠ – הרי כאן אחד, ״אשר ירשיען אלהים״⁠ – הרי כאן שנים, ואין בית דין שקול. מוסיפין עליהן עוד אחד ⁠– הרי כאן שלשה.

R' Yonatan says: The first instance of the term “the court” is stated first as part of the primary text of the passage, and it is necessary for conveying the straightforward meaning of the verse. And one does not derive tallies for halakhic matters by counting the first mention of a term. R' Yonatan holds that when a tally is derived from the number of instances a certain word appears in the Torah, the first instance is not included in the tally, as it is necessary to teach the mitzva itself; the tally may be counted only from subsequent mentions. Rather, this is how it is derived: “The cause of both parties should come before the court,” there is one judge here, and the continuation of the verse: “He whom the court should condemn” teaches that there are two judges here. And since a court may not be composed of an even number of judges, they must add an additional one to them, so there are 3 judges here.