Why the Torah Is Harder on the Thief Than on the Robber

"When a man gives to his fellow money" - Rabbi Yishmael says: only when he deposits it with him and says to him, "here, keep this for me." But if he said to him, "keep an eye on it," he is exempt. "Money or vessels" - just as money is something customarily counted, so vessels customarily counted. From here they said: any claim that is not by measure, weight, or number is no claim. Rabbi Natan says: "money" includes second-tithe money; "vessels" includes vessels. I would know only money and vessels; any other thing, from where? Scripture says "to keep," to include anything that needs safekeeping. "And it is stolen from the man's house, if the thief is found he shall pay double" - when? When it is not found in the keeper's possession. But if it is found in his possession, I might hear that he swears and is exempt; Scripture says "if it is indeed found in his hand" (Exodus 22:3), in any case. You have no need to say it according to the latter reading, but according to the first. "And it is stolen from the man's house" - to exempt one who steals from a thief. "If the thief is found he shall pay double" - the thief pays double, but the robber pays only the principal. What did the Torah see to be stricter with the thief than with the robber? Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai says: the robber treated the slave as equal to his Master, and so forth. "And if the thief is not found" - why is this said? From what is said "if the thief is found," I might hear that if the thief is found the householder is exempt from everything; what does "if the thief is not found" teach? I might hear that if the thief is found and has nothing to pay, the owner of the stolen object may not say to the keeper, "come and swear to me that you did not intend to sell them"; therefore it says "if the thief is not found" - that if the thief is found, the householder is exempt from everything. "And the householder shall draw near" - I might hear he is questioned by the Urim and Thummim; Scripture says "whom the judges condemn," I said only "judges" [Elohim], who condemn. "And the householder shall draw near" - with an oath. You say with an oath; or with or without an oath? You may reason: "laying of a hand" is said here and "laying of a hand" said there; just as there it is with an oath, so here with an oath; just as there with the divine Name, so here with the divine Name; just as here before a court, so there before a court; just as there for its own need, so here for its own need; just as here "for any matter of trespass," so there "for any matter of trespass." "If he has not put his hand to his fellow's goods" - for its own need. You say for its own need, or for its own need and not for its own need? Scripture says "for any matter of trespass" - for the House of Shammai obligate for the thoughts of the heart in misappropriation, as it says "for any matter of trespass." And the House of Hillel obligate only from the moment he put his hand to it; therefore it says "if he has not put his hand to his fellow's goods," for its own need.