This passage isn’t available in the reading corpus yet. Read in context
A robber must restore what he has stolen
The cited verse
The Hebrew (Masoretic Text)
וְהֵשִׁיב אֶת־הַגְּזֵלָה אֲשֶׁר גָּזָל
In Maimonides’ words
How Maimonides defines this commandment in his Sefer HaMitzvot — his own words, shown as a primary source.
היא שצונו להשיב את הגזלה בעצמה אם היא נשארה בעצמה, ואם נשבע בתוספת חומש, או לתת דמיה אם נשתנית. והוא אמרו יתעלה והשיב את הגזלה. וכבר בארו במסכת מכות (דף י"ד) שלאו דגזל הוא לאו הנתק לעשה, ואמרו הכתוב אמר לא תגזול והשיב את הגזלה. וכבר התבארו משפטי מצוה זו בב"ק. (ויקרא, הלכות גזלה פ"א):
That is that He commanded us to return the stolen item itself, if it is still remaining as itself - with the addition of a fifth if he swore [about it] - or to give its value, if it was transformed. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "and he shall return the stolen item" (Leviticus 5:3). And they already explained in Tractate Makkot (Makkot 16a) that the negative commandment of robbery is a negative commandment that is rectified by a positive commandment. And they said [about this] that Scripture said, "you shall not rob" (Leviticus 19:13), "and he shall return the stolen item." And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Bava Kamma. (See Parashat Vayikra; Mishneh Torah, Robbery and Lost Property 1.)
Hebrew: Sefer HaMitzvot, Warsaw 1883 (public domain). English: Sefaria Edition, trans. Rabbi Francis Nataf, 2021 (CC0). Via Sefaria; translator’s footnotes omitted.
Literary form: a case law — "if X, then Y"
Applicability
How the catalog describes where and when this commandment applies. These are independent descriptions, not a verdict on which laws still count.
- Recorded as practiced today
Classical halakhic consequences
The consequences the classical halakhah attaches to this commandment, grouped by who imposes them. Where a category has none recorded, that absence is itself meaningful.
Imposed by a court
No court-imposed penalty is recorded.
At the hands of Heaven
No divinely-imposed consequence is recorded.
Ritual remedy
- A guilt-offering (asham)
- Restitution (tashlumin)
How the streams of Judaism treat this commandment
The streams of Judaism read the same commandment differently — an ongoing plurality, not a ranking. Each position below is reported as the catalog records it; none is presented as the correct one.
- Orthodox Binding
- Conservative Binding
- Reform Kept as an ethical principle
- Reconstructionist Kept as an ethical principle
- Karaite Binding
24 of 613 commandments have been examined in depth so far — this one is queued.
How later traditions received this commandment
How later traditions read or reworked this commandment, each attributed to its own voice. The catalog’s own classification of each reception is shown as it records it, never adopted as GEBible’s.
Philo of Alexandria
- De Specialibus Legibus 4.2-12 rationalized it Philo treats the restitution-and-surcharge law as an ethical-philosophical principle, casting theft and its remedy in terms of justice and the moral discipline of the soul
Josephus
- Ant. 4.271-272 reinterpreted it Josephus restates the biblical theft/restitution legislation, paraphrasing the requirement of restoration with added penalty in his systematized presentation of Mosaic law
The New Testament
- Luke 19:8 affirmed it Zacchaeus pledges fourfold restitution, reflecting Second Temple restitution piety; the fourfold figure exceeds the Lev 5:23 principal-plus-fifth and echoes the multiple-restitution tradition (cf. Exod 21:37)
Beside the older legal codes of its world
The commandment set beside the ancient Near-Eastern legal collections scholars compare it to — a descriptive comparison, not a claim of dependence.
- code of hammurabi multiple restitution for theft of livestock/property (graduated by owner-status) Relationship to the parallel: parallel with divergence §8 Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, 2nd ed. (1997)
- code of hammurabi tenfold restitution for a herdsman's fraudulent misappropriation/alteration of entrusted animals (breach of trust) Relationship to the parallel: parallel with divergence §265 Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, 2nd ed. (1997)
- laws of eshnunna penalties and restitution involving stolen/fugitive slaves and strays (property-recovery context) Relationship to the parallel: parallel with divergence §§49-50 Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, 2nd ed. (1997)
- hittite laws graduated multiple restitution for theft of animals Relationship to the parallel: parallel with divergence §§57-70 Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, 2nd ed. (1997)
Where this commandment meets modern human-rights frameworks
One modern normative lens, attributed to it — not GEBible’s assessment. Each row names the framework it measures against and the catalog’s own classification of the relation.
This framework catalogues tensions; it records agreement in only one of its entries. The near-total tension rate is the shape of the instrument, not a finding.
No tension with the catalogued modern frameworks is recorded here.