Restitution vs. Penalty
The speaker defines a precise distinction in the Torah's language based on the nature of the obligation:
"Shalem Yishalem" (Double Language): Generally denotes Mamon (Civil Restitution). The doubling represents two concurrent legal realities: the Mazik's (damager) duty to pay and the Nizak's (victim) right to be made whole (Hashlamas HaChisaron).
"Yishalem" (Single Language): Generally denotes K’nas (Penalty). The singular language focuses exclusively on the Mazik's punitive obligation to pay, rather than a restoration of the victim's previous status.
Refining "Tooth and Foot" (Shein v’Regel): The Meitav Exception
The primary correction involves the specific case of Tooth and Foot (Exodus 22:4), where the Torah uses the singular "Yishalem" despite it being a category of Mamon (monetary loss).
The speaker explains this anomaly by noting that the Torah here is not talking about payment in general but specifically Meitav (paying from the best land):
Mazik-Centric Logic: The requirement to pay from the best land is not an inherent right (Zchus) of the victim to receive high-quality soil. Instead, it is a law governing the assets of the damager (Mitzad Dino shel ha-Mazik).
The Proof: If a person does not own "best land" (Meitav), he is not obligated to acquire it to pay the victim; he simply pays from what he has. This proves the quality of payment is tied to the payer's status, not the victim's right.
Resulting Classification: Because the Meitav requirement is tied strictly to the damager's assets, the payment takes on the legal "form" of a penalty (Geder K’nas). Thus, the Torah uses the singular "Yishalem" to reflect this payer-centric focus.
Shor Mu’ad & Eish: Since these are cases of Mamon (the owner pays for the actual value of the loss), the Torah writes Shalem Yishalem. The goal is to make the Nizak "whole."
Kefel, Arba’ah v’Chamisha (Theft): These are classic cases of K’nas (punitive fines). Since the payment exceeds the actual loss, it is not "restoring" the victim but "punishing" the thief. Thus, the Torah uses the singular Yishalem.
The Sho’el (Borrower): A borrower is chayav for the Mamon of the owner. It is a pure civil obligation. Therefore, the verse says Shalem Yishalem.
The "Li-Ba'alov" (To Its Owner) Nuance
The speaker provides a final refinement regarding verses that say "Yishalem Li-Ba'alov" (e.g., a guardian's liability).
Even when the payment is pure restitution (Mamon), the Torah sometimes uses the singular "Yishalem."
Reason: The second aspect of the "double language" (the victim's right) is already explicitly stated by the words "Li-Ba'alov" (to its owner). Since the receiver is named, the verb does not need to be doubled to imply the victim's right; the single verb suffices to cover the payer's obligation.
