The Thief Himself and the Guardian Who Falsely Cries Theft

Our Rabbis taught: "if the thief is found" - Scripture speaks of one who falsely pleads that a thief took it. Or is it only the thief himself? When it says "if the thief is not found," the thief himself is already stated; how then do I uphold "if the thief is found"? You must say Scripture speaks of one who falsely pleads a thief took it. It was taught otherwise: "if the thief is found" - Scripture speaks of the thief himself. Or is it only one who falsely pleads a thief took it? When it says "if the thief is not found," the false pleader is already stated; how do I uphold "if the thief is found"? Scripture speaks of the thief himself. In any case, all agree that "if the thief is not found" speaks of one who falsely pleads a thief took it. What is the implication? Rava said: if it is not found as he pleaded, but he himself stole it, he shall pay double. And from where that it is with an oath? As it is written "and the householder shall draw near to the judges" - with an oath. Or is it only for judgment? "Laying of a hand" is said above and below; just as there for an oath, so here for an oath. Granted to the one who says one verse speaks of the thief and one of the false pleader - why are two verses needed? One to exclude one who falsely pleads it was lost. And the other learns it from "the thief, the thief." And the other needs it for the teaching of Rabbi Chiya bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: one who falsely pleads a thief took a deposit, and slaughtered or sold it, pays fourfold and fivefold. And from where does the other derive Rabbi Chiya bar Abba's rule? He says to you: it is a comparison [hekkesh], and one does not raise objections against a comparison. Granted to the one who says one verse is the thief and one the false pleader, the thief himself is derived from here. But to the one who says both speak of the false pleader, from where the thief himself? Should you say, let it come by an a fortiori argument from the false pleader - it suffices that what comes from a derivation be like the source of the derivation: just as there with an oath, so here with an oath - it is derived from "if it is indeed found in his hand." And as the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: "in the water, in the water" twice is not a generalization and specification, but it restricted, then expanded, then restricted, so it expanded the whole. What did it expand? It expanded everything. If so, why are all these particulars needed? One to exclude slaves and one to exclude deeds. "Theft, and live animals" - for the teaching of Rav, who said: he must restore the principal in the form he stole it. And the other holds "if it is indeed found" is needed for the teaching of Rava bar Ahilai, that one who admits to a fine is exempt. "And it is found" - by witnesses; "if it is found" - by judges, excluding one who condemns himself. And the other derives this from "whom the judges condemn," and not the one who condemns himself. And the other needs it for one who admits to a fine and afterward witnesses come, that he is exempt; while the other holds that one who admits to a fine and afterward witnesses come is liable. Granted "if it is indeed found" for Rava bar Ahilai's rule; but why "ox, sheep, donkey"? For the teaching of the school of Rabbi Yishmael: any passage stated and then repeated was repeated only for some matter newly taught in it.