Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

January 16, 2024 | 讜壮 讘砖讘讟 转砖驻状讚

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

  • Masechet Bava Kamma is sponsored by the Futornick Family in loving memory of their fathers and grandfathers, Phillip Kaufman and David Futornick.

Bava Kamma 75

Today’s daf is sponsored by Joshua Waxman in loving memory of Alex Kahan, Eliyahu ben Shlomo ha-Kohen v’Aliza, father of Aimee Kahan, on his shloshim. “A passionate and gentle teacher who touched countless lives.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Blima Slutksy in loving memory of Mazal (Tina) bat David and Rina.

Today’s daf is dedicated to the refuah shleima of three boys from our community who were injured in the terrorist attack yesterday in Ra’anana, one of whom is still in critical condition – Nadav Efraim ben Shulamit Leah, Ilan Zvi ben Sharon, Gilad David ben Sima Chana, among all the others injured in the attack.聽

Rav Huna taught in the name of Rav that one who admits to a fine and then witnesses come, the one who admitted is still exempt. Rav Chisda raises a difficulty against him from a braita with a story about Rabbi Gamliel and Tavi his slave, where Rav Papa admitted that he blinded his eye. There are two different versions of the story in two different braitot. The Gemara first suggests that there is a dispute between these braitot on our issue – if one admits to the fine and then witnesses come, is the person exempt or liable, but then they suggest that the difference can be explained differently. Shmuel disagrees with Rav and obligates. They bring a source for each opinion in the Torah and raise a difficulty on Shmuel’s position from a braita. Shmuel resolves the difficulty. Rav Hamnuna limits the opinion of Rav and distinguishes between a case of confession that causes a financial obligation (such as theft, where one would have to pay the principal) and one with no financial obligation (such as one who was convicted for theft and admits to having slaughtered or sold. Rava raises a difficulty on this argument from the story with Rabbi Gamliel. But it is also quoted that Rabbi Yochanan makes the same distinction as Rav Hamnuna. And Rabbi Ashi brings proof from our Mishna and a braita. However, his proof from the braita was rejected. The Gemara suggests that Rav Hamnuna’s distinction is a debate between tannaim, although it is somewhat rejected.

砖诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讜讛 拽讗讬


The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, Rabbi Yehoshua was not present in court when Rabban Gamliel encountered him.


讜讛转谞讬讗 讗诪专 诇讜 讗讬谉 讘讚讘专讬讱 讻诇讜诐 砖讻讘专 讛讜讚讬转


The Gemara asks a question from a different source: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabban Gamliel: Your statement is nothing, as you have already admitted to inflicting the injury yourself? This indicates that even if witnesses would subsequently testify about the injury, Rabban Gamliel would not emancipate Tavi.


诪讗讬 诇讗讜 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚讗诪专 砖讻讘专 讗讬谉 诇讱 注讚讬诐 住讘专 诪讜讚讛 讘拽谞住 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讜讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚讗诪专 砖讻讘专 讛讜讚讬转 住讘专 诪讜讚讛 讘拽谞住 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 驻讟讜专


The Gemara suggests: What, is it not the case that the difference between these two baraitot is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m? This tanna of the first baraita, who says that Rabbi Yehoshua鈥檚 statement was: As you have no witnesses, holds that one who admits that he is liable to pay a fine is liable to pay the fine if afterward witnesses come and testify to his liability. And that tanna of the second baraita, who says that Rabbi Yehoshua鈥檚 statement was: As you have already admitted, holds that one who admits that he is liable to pay a fine is exempt from payment, even if afterward witnesses come and testify to his liability.


诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪讜讚讛 讘拽谞住 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 驻讟讜专 讜讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚讗诪专 砖讻讘专 讗讬谉 诇讱 注讚讬诐 住讘专 讞讜抓 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讜讛 讜讛讱 转谞讗 讚讗诪专 砖讻讘专 讛讜讚讬转 住讘专 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讜讛


The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No; it is possible to understand the baraitot differently. Everyone agrees that one who admits he is liable to pay a fine is exempt, even if afterward witnesses come and testify to his liability. And they disagree with regard to the following: This tanna, who says that Rabbi Yehoshua said: As you have no witnesses, holds that Rabbi Yehoshua was outside the court when Rabban Gamliel encountered him, and therefore his admission is disregarded. And that tanna, who says that Rabbi Yehoshua said: As you have already admitted, holds that Rabbi Yehoshua was in the court when Rabban Gamliel met him, so Rabban Gamliel鈥檚 admission is a valid admission.


讗讬转诪专 诪讜讚讛 讘拽谞住 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 专讘 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘


The Gemara analyzes in detail the dispute alluded to above: It was stated with regard to one who admits that he is liable to pay a fine, and afterward witnesses come and testify to his liability, that Rav says he is exempt, and Shmuel says he is liable.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 讗讛讬诇讗讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讗诐 讛诪爪讗 讘注讚讬诐 转诪爪讗 讘讚讬讬谞讬谉 驻专讟 诇诪专砖讬注 讗转 注爪诪讜


Rava bar Ahilai said: What is the reason for the ruling of Rav? With regard to theft, which is subject to a fine of double payment, the Torah states: 鈥淚f the theft shall be found in his possession alive, whether it is an ox, or a donkey, or a sheep, he shall pay double鈥 (Exodus 22:3). The verb for 鈥渟hall be found鈥 is doubled, as the verse states 鈥himmatze timmatze.鈥 Rav derives from the repetition that there are two matters that are found: The double payment is imposed only if it is found [himmatze], i.e., it is revealed that he stole the item, through the testimony of witnesses, and the theft is found [timmatze], as determined through judges. This excludes one who incriminates himself through his own admission.


诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讗砖专 讬专砖讬注谉 谞驻拽讗 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讜讚讛 讘拽谞住 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 驻讟讜专


Rav asks: But why do I need the Torah to teach this here? This principle is already derived from a different source: 鈥淭he one whom the judges convict shall pay double to his neighbor鈥 (Exodus 22:8), which indicates that self-incrimination is insufficient to render one liable for double payment. Rather, conclude from the fact that there are two verses to serve as the source for this principle that one who admits he is liable to pay a fine is exempt from paying even if afterward witnesses come and testify to his liability. The second verse teaches this additional novelty.


讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讱 讛讛讜讗 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讙谞讘 注爪诪讜 讻讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 讞讝拽讬讛


And Shmuel would explain the double expression differently. He could have said to you: That verse is necessary to teach that a thief himself must pay double payment, i.e., the double payment is imposed not only upon a bailee who takes a false oath that the article entrusted to him was stolen, but it is also imposed upon a thief, as the school of 岣zkiyya taught earlier in this chapter (63b).


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 诇砖诪讜讗诇 专讗讛 注讚讬诐 砖诪诪砖诪砖讬诐 讜讘讗讬诐 讜讗诪专 讙谞讘转讬 讗讘诇 诇讗 讟讘讞转讬 讜诇讗 诪讻专转讬 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 讗诇讗 拽专谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讞讝专讜 注讚讬诐 诇讗讞讜专讬讛诐


Rav raised an objection to Shmuel from the following baraita: If a thief saw witnesses who were approaching with the intent to testify against him, and at that point he said: I admit that I stole an animal, but I did not slaughter or sell it, he pays only the principal. This indicates that even if those witnesses subsequently testify, the thief remains exempt from the double payment as well as the fourfold or fivefold payment. Shmuel said to him in response: With what are we dealing here in this baraita? With a case where the witnesses returned back, i.e., ultimately they did not testify.


讜讛讗 诪讚转谞讬 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讬讘讜讗讜 注讚讬诐 讜讬注讬讚讜 诪讻诇诇 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 诇讗


Rav raised an objection: But this interpretation is impossible, as can be seen from the fact that the latter clause of the baraita teaches: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: Let the witnesses come and testify. This means that their testimony will be accepted and the thief will be required to pay the relevant fines. By inference it may be deduced that the first tanna holds that no, there is no point in the witnesses testifying, as the thief will be exempt in any case.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗讜 讗讬讻讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚拽讗讬 讻讜讜转讬 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉


Shmuel said to Rav: Isn鈥檛 there the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, which stands in accordance with my opinion? When I said that one who admits that he is liable to pay a fine and afterward witnesses testified that he committed that act is deemed liable, I said this ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon.


诇砖诪讜讗诇 讜讚讗讬 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 诇专讘 诪讬 诇讬诪讗 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗


The Gemara comments: According to Shmuel, his opinion on this matter is certainly subject to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as he himself was forced to admit that his opinion is in accordance only with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, not that of the first tanna of the baraita. But according to Rav, shall we say that his opinion too is necessarily subject to this dispute between tanna鈥檌m?


讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛转诐 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 诪讜讚讬 诪讞诪转 讘讬注转讜转讗 讚注讚讬诐 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诪讜讚讛 诪注爪诪讜 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讜讚讛


The Gemara explains: Rav could have said to you: I say my opinion in accordance with the rulings of both tanna鈥檌m of the baraita, even according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says that the testimony of the witnesses obligates the thief to pay a fine even after his admission only there, in that specific case, because the thief admitted his guilt solely due to his fear of the impending testimony of the witnesses. But here, in an ordinary case of admission, where there is no impending testimony to incriminate him, and he admits his guilt of his own volition, even Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, would concede that the thief is exempt from payment even if witnesses subsequently testify that he is liable.


讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 诪住转讘专讗 诪讬诇转讬讛 讚专讘 讘讗讜诪专 讙谞讘转讬 讜讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 砖讙谞讘 驻讟讜专 砖讛专讬 讞讬讬讘 注爪诪讜 讘拽专谉


Rav Hamnuna said: Rav鈥檚 statement is more reasonable in a case where the thief says: I stole an item, and subsequently witnesses came and testified that he stole that item. In that case it is logical that the thief is exempt from paying the fine despite the witnesses鈥 testimony, because he at least obligated himself to pay the principal amount via his admission.


讗讘诇 讗诪专 诇讗 讙谞讘转讬 讜讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 砖讙谞讘 讜讞讝专 讜讗诪专 讟讘讞转讬 讜诪讻专转讬 讜讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 砖讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 讞讬讬讘 砖讛专讬 驻讟专 注爪诪讜 诪讻诇讜诐


But if he says: I did not steal anything, and witnesses came and testified that he did steal an animal, and subsequently the thief says: Yes, I did steal the animal, and I also slaughtered it, or I also sold it, and witnesses came and testified that he slaughtered or sold it, he is liable to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment. The reason he is liable is that through his admission he sought to exempt himself from any payment whatsoever. In order for an admission to exempt the perpetrator from a fine, it must include an admission that he is liable to pay some payment.


讗诪专 专讘讗 [拽驻讞转讬] 诇住讘讬 讚讘讬 专讘 讚讛讗 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 驻讜讟专 注爪诪讜 诪讻诇讜诐 讛讜讛 讜拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜诇讗 拽讗 诪砖谞讬 诇讬讛


Rava said: In this case I have gotten the better [kipa岣i] of the elders of the school of Rav, which is a reference to Rav Hamnuna. The reason is that in the baraita that discusses Rabban Gamliel injuring his slave, he was seeking to exempt himself from any payment whatsoever through his admission, and yet earlier in the Gemara it was said that Rav 岣sda stated this baraita to Rav Huna to challenge Rav Huna鈥檚 opinion, and Rav Huna did not answer him that Rabban Gamliel鈥檚 case was different because his admission served to exempt him entirely.


讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讙谞讘转讬 讜讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 砖讙谞讘 驻讟讜专 砖讛专讬 讞讬讬讘 注爪诪讜 讘拽专谉 讗讘诇 讗诪专 诇讗 讙谞讘 讜讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 砖讙谞讘 讜讞讝专 讜讗诪专 讟讘讞转讬 讜诪讻专转讬 讜讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 砖讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 讞讬讬讘 砖讛专讬 驻讟专 注爪诪讜 诪讻诇讜诐


The Gemara notes: It was also stated that Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says the same opinion as Rav Hamnuna. If a thief says: I stole an item, and witnesses came and testified that he stole that item, the thief is exempt from paying the fine despite the witnesses鈥 testimony, because he at least obligates himself, through his admission, to pay the principal. But if he says: I did not steal anything, and witnesses came and testified that he did steal an animal, and subsequently the thief says: Yes, I did steal the animal, and I also slaughtered it, or I also sold it, and then witnesses came and testified that he slaughtered or sold it, he is liable to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment, as through his admission he was seeking to exempt himself from any payment whatsoever.


讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讜讘专讬讬转讗 谞诪讬 讚讬拽讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚转谞谉 讙谞讘 注诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讜讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 注诇 驻讬 注讚 讗讞讚 讗讜 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讜讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛


Rav Ashi said: There is a mishna and a baraita that are also precisely formulated in accordance with this opinion. The mishna is as we learned (74b): If one stole an ox or a sheep, as established based on the testimony of two witnesses, and he subsequently slaughtered or sold the stolen animal, as established based on the testimony of one witness or based on his own admission, he pays the double payment, but he does not pay the fourfold or fivefold payment.


诇诪讛 诇讬 讚转谞讬 讙谞讘 注诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 诇讬转谞讬 讙谞讘 讜讟讘讞 [讜诪讻专] 注诇 驻讬 注讚 讗讞讚 讗讜 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 讗诇讗 讛拽专谉


Why do I need the mishna to teach in the beginning of this case: If one stole an ox or a sheep, as established based on the testimony of two witnesses? Let the mishna teach the case more simply: If one stole an animal and then slaughtered or sold it, as established based on the testimony of one witness or based on his own admission, he pays only the principal. This would serve to teach the same principle in a less complicated manner, without the need for two additional witnesses.


讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讙谞讘 注诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讜讟讘讞 注诇 驻讬 注讚 讗讞讚 讗讜 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪讞讬讬讘 注爪诪讜 讘拽专谉


Rather, is it not correct to say that by citing the more complicated case, this is what the mishna teaches us: It is only in this case, where it is established that the thief stole an animal based on the testimony of two witnesses, and it is established that he slaughtered or sold it based on the testimony of one witness or based on his own admission, and where he does not obligate himself through his admission to pay the principal, that he is obligated to pay the fine.


讛讜讗 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 讚讜诪讬讗 讚注诇 驻讬 注讚 讗讞讚 诪讛 注诇 驻讬 注讚 讗讞讚 讻讬 讗转讬 注讚 讗讞讚 诪爪讟专祝 讘讛讚讬讛 诪讞讬讬讘 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 谞诪讬 讻讬 讗转讜 注讚讬诐 诪讞讬讬讘


The Gemara elaborates: In other words, it is only in that case, where the theft is established based on the testimony of two witnesses, that we say that liability based on his own admission is similar to the testimony of one witness, in that just as when the slaughter is established based on the testimony of one witness, if one other witness later comes he joins together with the first witness and together their testimony is rendered a valid testimony of two witnesses and the thief becomes liable to pay, so too, in a case when the slaughter is established based on his own admission, if witnesses subsequently come and testify, he becomes liable to pay the fine, as his admission would not have rendered him liable to pay any payment.


讗讘诇 讙谞讘 讜讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 注诇 驻讬 注讚 讗讞讚 讗讜 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 讚讞讬讬讘 注爪诪讜 讘拽专谉 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 讚讜诪讬讗 讚注诇 驻讬 注讚 讗讞讚


But if it is established that the thief stole an animal and slaughtered or sold it, all based on the testimony of one witness or based on his own admission, in which case through his admission he obligates himself to pay the principal amount, we do not say that when witnesses testify subsequent to his own admission it is similar to when they arrive subsequent to the testimony of one witness, and he is liable to pay the fine in both cases. Rather, since in this case his admission would have rendered him liable to pay the principal due to the fact that the theft was not established based on the testimony of two witnesses, it is considered a proper admission, which exempts him from paying the fine.


讘专讬讬转讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讗讛 注讚讬诐 砖诪诪砖诪砖讬谉 讜讘讗讬谉 讜讗诪专 讙谞讘转讬 讗讘诇 诇讗 讟讘讞转讬 讜诇讗 诪讻专转讬 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 讗诇讗 拽专谉 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬转谞讗 讜讗诪专 讙谞讘转讬 讗讘诇 诇讗 讟讘讞转讬 讜诇讗 诪讻专转讬 谞讬转谞讬 讗讜 讙谞讘转讬 讗讜 讟讘讞转讬 讜诪讻专转讬


The baraita that supports Rav Hamnuna鈥檚 opinion is the one cited earlier, as it is taught: If a thief saw witnesses who were approaching with the intent to testify against him, and at that point he said: I admit that I stole an animal, but I did not slaughter or sell it, he pays only the principal. Why do I need the baraita to teach: And the thief said: I admit that I stole an animal but I did not slaughter or sell it? Let it teach a simpler case, in which the thief said either: I stole the animal, or: I slaughtered it, or: I sold it.


讗诇讗 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 讙谞讘转讬 讛讜讗 讚讞讬讬讘 注爪诪讜 讘拽专谉 讚驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 讗诪专 诇讗 讙谞讘转讬 讜讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 砖讙谞讘 讜讞讝专 讜讗诪专 讟讘讞转讬 讜诪讻专转讬 讜讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 砖讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 讚诇讗 讞讬讬讘 注爪诪讜 讘拽专谉 讞讬讬讘 讗诇诪讗 讛讜讚讗讛 讚讟讘讬讞讛 诇讗讜 讛讜讚讗讛 讛讬讗


Rather, by choosing the more complicated case, this is what the baraita teaches us: The only reason that the thief is exempt from payment is that he says: I stole the animal, as in that case he obligated himself to pay the principal. But if he says: I did not steal, and witnesses came and testified that he did steal an animal, and subsequently he changed his claim and says: I slaughtered it, or: I sold it, and then witnesses came and confirmed that he slaughtered or sold it, in which case the thief did not obligate himself to pay the principal or any other payment, he would be liable to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment. Apparently, an admission to the slaughter of a stolen animal is not considered a valid admission, as such an admission does not obligate the perpetrator to pay a fine.


讗诪专讬 诇讗 讛讬讗 讙讜驻讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 讙谞讘转讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗诪专 诇讗 讟讘讞转讬 讜诇讗 诪讻专转讬 讜讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 砖讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗


The Gemara says, in rejection of this second proof: No, it is possible to explain the reason the tanna of the baraita chose to present this case in a different manner, as it teaches us this halakha itself: That once the thief says: I stole the animal, even if he also says: I did not slaughter or sell it, and later witnesses came and testified that he slaughtered or sold it, he is exempt from paying the fourfold or fivefold payment. What is the reason for this exemption?


转砖诇讜诪讬 (讗专讘注) 讞诪砖讛 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜诇讗 转砖诇讜诪讬 砖诇砖讛


The reason is that the Merciful One states in the Torah that there is a payment of four sheep for a sheep and five oxen for an ox (see Exodus 21:37). This indicates that a thief can be rendered liable to pay, respectively, a fourfold or fivefold payment, but not a fourfold payment for an ox, nor a threefold payment for a sheep. In other words, one should not view the fines as independent of each other, that if the thief is found with the animal he pays as a fine the double payment, and if he slaughtered or sold it he pays a different fine, i.e., the fourfold or fivefold payment. Rather, the fourfold or fivefold payment comprises the principal, the double payment, and an additional two or three times the principal. By admitting to his act of theft, the thief exempts himself from the double payment, and the remaining fine for slaughtering a sheep would be a threefold payment, or a fourfold payment for an ox, which are not mandated by the Torah.


诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讛讬讜 砖谞讬诐 诪注讬讚讬谉 砖讙谞讘 讜讛讬讜 砖谞讬诐 诪注讬讚讬诐 讗讜转讜 砖讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 讛讜讝诪讜 注讚讬 讙谞讬讘讛 注讚讜转 砖讘讟诇讛 诪拽爪转讛 讘讟诇讛 讻讜诇讛


The Gemara proposes: Let us say that the opinion of Rav Hamnuna and Rabbi Yo岣nan is the subject of a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. As it is taught in a baraita: If two witnesses testify that someone stole an animal, and two others testify against him that he slaughtered or sold the animal, and the witnesses who had testified concerning the theft were rendered conspiring witnesses, the thief is exempt from all payment, as testimony that was partially invalidated is entirely invalidated. If the testimony concerning the theft was undermined, the testimony concerning the slaughter or sale is thereby rendered irrelevant. Consequently, the alleged thief is exempt from any payment.


讛讜讝诪讜 注讚讬 讟讘讬讞讛 讛讜讗 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讜讛谉 诪砖诇诪讬谉 转砖诇讜诪讬 砖诇砖讛 诪砖讜诐 住讜诪讻讜住 讗诪专讜 讛谉 诪砖诇诪讬谉 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讜讛讜讗 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 砖诇砖讛 诇驻专 讜砖谞讬诐 诇讗讬诇


If the witnesses who testified concerning the slaughter or sale were rendered conspiring witnesses, but the testimony concerning the theft remains credible, the thief pays the double payment, and the conspiring witnesses pay a threefold payment, as that is the loss they sought to impose on the thief. The Sages said in the name of Sumakhos: The witnesses pay the double payment, and the thief pays a threefold payment for an ox and a twofold payment for a ram. This concludes the baraita.


讗讛讬讬讗 拽讗讬 住讜诪讻讜住 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗专讬砖讗 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇住讜诪讻讜住 注讚讜转 砖讘讟诇讛 诪拽爪转讛 讘讟诇讛 讻讜诇讛


The Gemara analyzes the statement of Sumakhos: To which clause in the baraita is Sumakhos referring? If we say that he is referring to the first clause, in which the testimony concerning the theft is invalidated, this is impossible. Doesn鈥檛 Sumakhos accept the principle that testimony that was partially invalidated is entirely invalidated, in this case rendering the testimony concerning the slaughter or sale irrelevant if there is no testimony concerning the theft?


讜讗诇讗 讗住讬驻讗 砖驻讬专 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讜讛诐 诪砖诇诪讬谉 转砖诇讜诪讬 砖诇砖讛


But rather, he must be referring to the latter clause of the baraita, in which the testimony concerning the slaughter or sale is invalidated. This, too, is impossible, as in this case the Rabbis, i.e., the first tanna of the baraita, say well, i.e., what they state is reasonable, and the thief pays the double payment and the witnesses pay a threefold payment. On what basis would Sumakhos dispute this ruling?


讗诇讗 诪讬诇转讗 讗讞专讬转讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讻讙讜谉 讚讗转讜 讘讬 转专讬 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讙谞讘转 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬谉 讙谞讘转讬 讜讟讘讞转讬 讜诪讻专转讬 诪讬讛讜 诇讗 讘驻谞讬讻诐 讙谞讘转讬 讜讗讬讬转讬 住讛讚讬 讜讗讝诪讬谞讛讜 讚诇讗 讘讗驻讬讬讛讜 讙谞讘 讜讗讬讬转讬 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 住讛讚讬 讜讗住讛讬讚讜 讘讬讛 讚讙谞讘 讜讟讘讞 讜诪讻专


Rather, it must be that Sumakhos is referring to a different case entirely, one that is not mentioned explicitly in the baraita, and a different matter is at the core of the dispute between them. Sumakhos is referring to a case where two people come and say to the thief: You stole an animal. The thief said to them in reply: Yes, I did steal the animal, and moreover, I slaughtered it, or: I sold it. But I did not steal it in your presence, and your testimony that you saw me steal it is false. And subsequently the thief brought new witnesses who rendered the original witnesses conspiring witnesses, by testifying that they were in a different place at the time they claimed that the theft occurred, thereby proving that the thief did not steal in their presence. And finally, the owner of the animal brought other witnesses who testified that the thief stole the animal and slaughtered or sold it.


讜讘讛讜讚讗转 讟讘讬讞讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬


And Sumakhos and the Rabbis disagree over whether an admission to the slaughter of a stolen animal is a valid admission, even though it does not lead to liability to pay any payment. Both parties to the dispute agree that the admission of a perpetrator only in response to the testimony of witnesses is not a valid admission.


讚专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讛讜讚讗讛 讚讙谞讬讘讛 诪讞诪转 注讚讬诐 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 诪讜讚讛 讛讜讚讗讛 讚讟讘讬讞讛 讛讜讚讗讛 讛讬讗 讜驻讟讜专


The dispute between them is that the Rabbis maintain that even though the thief鈥檚 admission concerning the theft itself is not a valid admission because it is due only to the witnesses who have testified against him that he admits his guilt, nevertheless, his admission concerning the slaughter of the animal is a valid admission, despite the fact it does not render the thief liable to pay a fine, and he is therefore exempt from the fourfold or fivefold payment. The conspiring witnesses must pay the double payment to the thief, since this is the amount of financial damage they sought to impose on him, while the thief pays the double payment to the owner, as valid witnesses ultimately testified that he stole the animal.


讜住讜诪讻讜住 住讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚讛讜讚讗讛 讚讙谞讬讘讛 诪讞诪转 注讚讬诐 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 诪讜讚讛 讚讟讘讬讞讛 诇讗讜 讛讜讚讗讛


And Sumakhos maintains that since the admission concerning the theft itself is not a valid admission because it was due only to the testimony of the witnesses that he admits his guilt, so too, the admission concerning the slaughter is not a valid admission, because it does not obligate him to pay a fine, as stated by Rav Hamnuna and Rabbi Yo岣nan.


讜讛谞讱 注讚讬诐 拽诪讗讬 讚讗讝诪讬谞讛讜 诪砖诇诪讬谉 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讜讛讜讗 诪砖诇诐 砖诇砖讛 诇驻专 讜砖谞讬诐 诇讗讬诇


And consequently, those first witnesses to the theft, who were rendered conspiring witnesses, pay the double payment, as that is the amount of financial damage they sought to impose on him, and the thief pays the double payment to the owner of the animal, as valid witnesses ultimately testified that he stole it, and since his admission is invalid he must pay an additional threefold payment, for a total of a fivefold payment for an ox, or a twofold payment, for a total of a fourfold payment, for a ram. If this is their dispute, Sumakhos is in agreement with the opinion of Rav Hamnuna and Rabbi Yo岣nan, while the Rabbis disagree with this opinion.


讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讛讜讚讗讛 讚讟讘讬讞讛 诇讗讜 讛讜讚讗讛 讛讬讗


Rav A岣, son of Rav Ika, said: No; it is possible to explain the baraita differently, as follows: Everyone, i.e., both Sumakhos and the Rabbis, maintains that an admission concerning the slaughter of a stolen animal is not a valid admission, as it does not render the perpetrator liable to pay any payment.


讗诇讗 讘注讚讜转 砖讗讬 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讝讬诪讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讻讙讜谉 讚讗转讜 住讛讚讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讙谞讘转 讜讗诪专 诇讛讜 讙谞讘转讬 讜讟讘讞转讬 讜诪讻专转讬 诪讬讛讜 诇讗 讘驻谞讬讻诐 讙谞讘转讬 讗诇讗 讘驻谞讬 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜讗讬讬转讬 住讛讚讬 讜讗讝诪讬谞讛讜 讚诇讗 讘讗驻讬讬讛讜 讙谞讘 讜讗转讜 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜讗住讛讬讚讜 讘讬讛 讚讙谞讘 讜讟讘讞 讜诪讻专


Rather, they disagree over the concept of testimony that you cannot render conspiratory testimony. Sumakhos and the Rabbis disagree with regard to a case where witnesses come and say to the thief: You stole an animal. And the thief said to them in response: I did steal an animal, and moreover, I slaughtered it, or: I sold it. But you are false witnesses, as it was not in your presence that I stole the animal, but in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so. And the thief subsequently brought witnesses who established the first set of witnesses as conspiring witnesses by testifying that the thief did not steal the animal in their presence. And finally, so-and-so and so-and-so, the two people mentioned by the thief, came and testified against the thief, saying that he stole the animal and also slaughtered or sold it.


讜讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讛讜讬讗 诇讛 注讚讜转 砖讗讬 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讝讬诪讛 讜讻诇 注讚讜转 砖讗讬 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讝讬诪讛 诇讗 讛讜讬讗 注讚讜转


And it is with regard to this point that they disagree, that the Rabbis maintain that the testimony of so-and-so and so-and-so is testimony that you cannot render conspiratory testimony, as the thief himself admits that their testimony is true. And any testimony that you cannot render conspiratory testimony is not considered valid testimony. Their testimony is therefore discounted, which leaves only the thief鈥檚 statement. The thief pays the money he admitted he owes, i.e., the principal of the theft, but he is exempt from paying a fine. Meanwhile, the first witnesses, who had been rendered conspiring witnesses, pay the thief the double payment.


讜住讜诪讻讜住 住讘专 注讚讜转 砖讗讬 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讝讬诪讛 讛讜讬讗 注讚讜转


And Sumakhos maintains that testimony that you cannot render conspiratory testimony is nevertheless considered valid testimony. Therefore, the testimony of so-and-so and so-and-so is valid, and the thief must pay the fourfold or fivefold payment. Sumakhos states that the thief pays a threefold payment for an ox and a twofold payment for a ram. The reason is that the thief receives a double payment from the first, conspiring witnesses, which he gives to the owner of the animal, along with the remainder of the payment. This amounts to a threefold payment for an ox and twofold payment for a ram that he is required to pay from his own funds.


讜讛讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讚注讚讜转 砖讗讬 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讝讬诪讛 诇讗 讛讜讬讗 注讚讜转 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讬讚注讬 讘讗讬讝讛 讬讜诐 讘讗讬讝讛 砖注讛 讚诇讬讻讗 诇注讚讜转 讻诇诇 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 住讬讜注讬 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 诪住讬讬注讬 诇讬讛


The Gemara asks: But do we not maintain as an accepted principle that testimony that you cannot render conspiratory testimony is not valid testimony? It is not reasonable to suggest that Sumakhos would disagree with that principle. The Gemara answers: This statement applies in a case where witnesses say that they do not know on which day or at which time of day the events in question occurred, in which case no one could ever say to them: You were in a different place at that time, thereby rendering them conspiring witnesses. With regard to such a case one can say that in effect there is no testimony at all, as the vague statement of the witnesses does not allow them to be prosecuted as conspiring witnesses. But here the thief is supporting their testimony, which renders it more credible.


讗诪专 诪专 讛谉 诪砖诇诪讬谉 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 诪讚拽讗 诪讜讚讛 讚讙谞讘 拽专谉 讘注讬 砖诇讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 转谞讬


The Master said in the baraita that the Sages stated in the name of Sumakhos: The witnesses pay the double payment. The Gemara asks: From the fact that the thief admits that he stole the animal, he is required to pay the principal amount regardless of any subsequent testimony provided by witnesses. Why, then, should the conspiring witnesses be required to pay a double payment, which includes the principal amount? Rabbi Elazar says in the name of Rav: Teach the baraita differently, and instead say that Sumakhos said that the witnesses are liable for


  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

  • Masechet Bava Kamma is sponsored by the Futornick Family in loving memory of their fathers and grandfathers, Phillip Kaufman and David Futornick.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Bava Kamma 70-76 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about a person who stole an animal and then killed it or sold it. If...
talking talmud_square

Bava Kamma 75: Can a Thief Get Out of Penalties by Coming Clean?!

[Who's Who: Rabban Gamliel and Tavi] The case of witnesses and admission, and when in that timeline one's obligation to...

Bava Kamma 75

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 75

砖诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讜讛 拽讗讬


The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, Rabbi Yehoshua was not present in court when Rabban Gamliel encountered him.


讜讛转谞讬讗 讗诪专 诇讜 讗讬谉 讘讚讘专讬讱 讻诇讜诐 砖讻讘专 讛讜讚讬转


The Gemara asks a question from a different source: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabban Gamliel: Your statement is nothing, as you have already admitted to inflicting the injury yourself? This indicates that even if witnesses would subsequently testify about the injury, Rabban Gamliel would not emancipate Tavi.


诪讗讬 诇讗讜 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚讗诪专 砖讻讘专 讗讬谉 诇讱 注讚讬诐 住讘专 诪讜讚讛 讘拽谞住 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讜讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚讗诪专 砖讻讘专 讛讜讚讬转 住讘专 诪讜讚讛 讘拽谞住 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 驻讟讜专


The Gemara suggests: What, is it not the case that the difference between these two baraitot is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m? This tanna of the first baraita, who says that Rabbi Yehoshua鈥檚 statement was: As you have no witnesses, holds that one who admits that he is liable to pay a fine is liable to pay the fine if afterward witnesses come and testify to his liability. And that tanna of the second baraita, who says that Rabbi Yehoshua鈥檚 statement was: As you have already admitted, holds that one who admits that he is liable to pay a fine is exempt from payment, even if afterward witnesses come and testify to his liability.


诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪讜讚讛 讘拽谞住 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 驻讟讜专 讜讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚讗诪专 砖讻讘专 讗讬谉 诇讱 注讚讬诐 住讘专 讞讜抓 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讜讛 讜讛讱 转谞讗 讚讗诪专 砖讻讘专 讛讜讚讬转 住讘专 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讜讛


The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No; it is possible to understand the baraitot differently. Everyone agrees that one who admits he is liable to pay a fine is exempt, even if afterward witnesses come and testify to his liability. And they disagree with regard to the following: This tanna, who says that Rabbi Yehoshua said: As you have no witnesses, holds that Rabbi Yehoshua was outside the court when Rabban Gamliel encountered him, and therefore his admission is disregarded. And that tanna, who says that Rabbi Yehoshua said: As you have already admitted, holds that Rabbi Yehoshua was in the court when Rabban Gamliel met him, so Rabban Gamliel鈥檚 admission is a valid admission.


讗讬转诪专 诪讜讚讛 讘拽谞住 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 专讘 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘


The Gemara analyzes in detail the dispute alluded to above: It was stated with regard to one who admits that he is liable to pay a fine, and afterward witnesses come and testify to his liability, that Rav says he is exempt, and Shmuel says he is liable.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 讗讛讬诇讗讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讗诐 讛诪爪讗 讘注讚讬诐 转诪爪讗 讘讚讬讬谞讬谉 驻专讟 诇诪专砖讬注 讗转 注爪诪讜


Rava bar Ahilai said: What is the reason for the ruling of Rav? With regard to theft, which is subject to a fine of double payment, the Torah states: 鈥淚f the theft shall be found in his possession alive, whether it is an ox, or a donkey, or a sheep, he shall pay double鈥 (Exodus 22:3). The verb for 鈥渟hall be found鈥 is doubled, as the verse states 鈥himmatze timmatze.鈥 Rav derives from the repetition that there are two matters that are found: The double payment is imposed only if it is found [himmatze], i.e., it is revealed that he stole the item, through the testimony of witnesses, and the theft is found [timmatze], as determined through judges. This excludes one who incriminates himself through his own admission.


诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讗砖专 讬专砖讬注谉 谞驻拽讗 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讜讚讛 讘拽谞住 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 驻讟讜专


Rav asks: But why do I need the Torah to teach this here? This principle is already derived from a different source: 鈥淭he one whom the judges convict shall pay double to his neighbor鈥 (Exodus 22:8), which indicates that self-incrimination is insufficient to render one liable for double payment. Rather, conclude from the fact that there are two verses to serve as the source for this principle that one who admits he is liable to pay a fine is exempt from paying even if afterward witnesses come and testify to his liability. The second verse teaches this additional novelty.


讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讱 讛讛讜讗 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讙谞讘 注爪诪讜 讻讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 讞讝拽讬讛


And Shmuel would explain the double expression differently. He could have said to you: That verse is necessary to teach that a thief himself must pay double payment, i.e., the double payment is imposed not only upon a bailee who takes a false oath that the article entrusted to him was stolen, but it is also imposed upon a thief, as the school of 岣zkiyya taught earlier in this chapter (63b).


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 诇砖诪讜讗诇 专讗讛 注讚讬诐 砖诪诪砖诪砖讬诐 讜讘讗讬诐 讜讗诪专 讙谞讘转讬 讗讘诇 诇讗 讟讘讞转讬 讜诇讗 诪讻专转讬 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 讗诇讗 拽专谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讞讝专讜 注讚讬诐 诇讗讞讜专讬讛诐


Rav raised an objection to Shmuel from the following baraita: If a thief saw witnesses who were approaching with the intent to testify against him, and at that point he said: I admit that I stole an animal, but I did not slaughter or sell it, he pays only the principal. This indicates that even if those witnesses subsequently testify, the thief remains exempt from the double payment as well as the fourfold or fivefold payment. Shmuel said to him in response: With what are we dealing here in this baraita? With a case where the witnesses returned back, i.e., ultimately they did not testify.


讜讛讗 诪讚转谞讬 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讬讘讜讗讜 注讚讬诐 讜讬注讬讚讜 诪讻诇诇 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 诇讗


Rav raised an objection: But this interpretation is impossible, as can be seen from the fact that the latter clause of the baraita teaches: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: Let the witnesses come and testify. This means that their testimony will be accepted and the thief will be required to pay the relevant fines. By inference it may be deduced that the first tanna holds that no, there is no point in the witnesses testifying, as the thief will be exempt in any case.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗讜 讗讬讻讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚拽讗讬 讻讜讜转讬 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉


Shmuel said to Rav: Isn鈥檛 there the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, which stands in accordance with my opinion? When I said that one who admits that he is liable to pay a fine and afterward witnesses testified that he committed that act is deemed liable, I said this ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon.


诇砖诪讜讗诇 讜讚讗讬 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 诇专讘 诪讬 诇讬诪讗 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗


The Gemara comments: According to Shmuel, his opinion on this matter is certainly subject to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as he himself was forced to admit that his opinion is in accordance only with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, not that of the first tanna of the baraita. But according to Rav, shall we say that his opinion too is necessarily subject to this dispute between tanna鈥檌m?


讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛转诐 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 诪讜讚讬 诪讞诪转 讘讬注转讜转讗 讚注讚讬诐 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诪讜讚讛 诪注爪诪讜 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讜讚讛


The Gemara explains: Rav could have said to you: I say my opinion in accordance with the rulings of both tanna鈥檌m of the baraita, even according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says that the testimony of the witnesses obligates the thief to pay a fine even after his admission only there, in that specific case, because the thief admitted his guilt solely due to his fear of the impending testimony of the witnesses. But here, in an ordinary case of admission, where there is no impending testimony to incriminate him, and he admits his guilt of his own volition, even Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, would concede that the thief is exempt from payment even if witnesses subsequently testify that he is liable.


讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 诪住转讘专讗 诪讬诇转讬讛 讚专讘 讘讗讜诪专 讙谞讘转讬 讜讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 砖讙谞讘 驻讟讜专 砖讛专讬 讞讬讬讘 注爪诪讜 讘拽专谉


Rav Hamnuna said: Rav鈥檚 statement is more reasonable in a case where the thief says: I stole an item, and subsequently witnesses came and testified that he stole that item. In that case it is logical that the thief is exempt from paying the fine despite the witnesses鈥 testimony, because he at least obligated himself to pay the principal amount via his admission.


讗讘诇 讗诪专 诇讗 讙谞讘转讬 讜讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 砖讙谞讘 讜讞讝专 讜讗诪专 讟讘讞转讬 讜诪讻专转讬 讜讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 砖讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 讞讬讬讘 砖讛专讬 驻讟专 注爪诪讜 诪讻诇讜诐


But if he says: I did not steal anything, and witnesses came and testified that he did steal an animal, and subsequently the thief says: Yes, I did steal the animal, and I also slaughtered it, or I also sold it, and witnesses came and testified that he slaughtered or sold it, he is liable to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment. The reason he is liable is that through his admission he sought to exempt himself from any payment whatsoever. In order for an admission to exempt the perpetrator from a fine, it must include an admission that he is liable to pay some payment.


讗诪专 专讘讗 [拽驻讞转讬] 诇住讘讬 讚讘讬 专讘 讚讛讗 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 驻讜讟专 注爪诪讜 诪讻诇讜诐 讛讜讛 讜拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜诇讗 拽讗 诪砖谞讬 诇讬讛


Rava said: In this case I have gotten the better [kipa岣i] of the elders of the school of Rav, which is a reference to Rav Hamnuna. The reason is that in the baraita that discusses Rabban Gamliel injuring his slave, he was seeking to exempt himself from any payment whatsoever through his admission, and yet earlier in the Gemara it was said that Rav 岣sda stated this baraita to Rav Huna to challenge Rav Huna鈥檚 opinion, and Rav Huna did not answer him that Rabban Gamliel鈥檚 case was different because his admission served to exempt him entirely.


讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讙谞讘转讬 讜讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 砖讙谞讘 驻讟讜专 砖讛专讬 讞讬讬讘 注爪诪讜 讘拽专谉 讗讘诇 讗诪专 诇讗 讙谞讘 讜讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 砖讙谞讘 讜讞讝专 讜讗诪专 讟讘讞转讬 讜诪讻专转讬 讜讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 砖讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 讞讬讬讘 砖讛专讬 驻讟专 注爪诪讜 诪讻诇讜诐


The Gemara notes: It was also stated that Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says the same opinion as Rav Hamnuna. If a thief says: I stole an item, and witnesses came and testified that he stole that item, the thief is exempt from paying the fine despite the witnesses鈥 testimony, because he at least obligates himself, through his admission, to pay the principal. But if he says: I did not steal anything, and witnesses came and testified that he did steal an animal, and subsequently the thief says: Yes, I did steal the animal, and I also slaughtered it, or I also sold it, and then witnesses came and testified that he slaughtered or sold it, he is liable to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment, as through his admission he was seeking to exempt himself from any payment whatsoever.


讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讜讘专讬讬转讗 谞诪讬 讚讬拽讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚转谞谉 讙谞讘 注诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讜讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 注诇 驻讬 注讚 讗讞讚 讗讜 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讜讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛


Rav Ashi said: There is a mishna and a baraita that are also precisely formulated in accordance with this opinion. The mishna is as we learned (74b): If one stole an ox or a sheep, as established based on the testimony of two witnesses, and he subsequently slaughtered or sold the stolen animal, as established based on the testimony of one witness or based on his own admission, he pays the double payment, but he does not pay the fourfold or fivefold payment.


诇诪讛 诇讬 讚转谞讬 讙谞讘 注诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 诇讬转谞讬 讙谞讘 讜讟讘讞 [讜诪讻专] 注诇 驻讬 注讚 讗讞讚 讗讜 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 讗诇讗 讛拽专谉


Why do I need the mishna to teach in the beginning of this case: If one stole an ox or a sheep, as established based on the testimony of two witnesses? Let the mishna teach the case more simply: If one stole an animal and then slaughtered or sold it, as established based on the testimony of one witness or based on his own admission, he pays only the principal. This would serve to teach the same principle in a less complicated manner, without the need for two additional witnesses.


讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讙谞讘 注诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讜讟讘讞 注诇 驻讬 注讚 讗讞讚 讗讜 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪讞讬讬讘 注爪诪讜 讘拽专谉


Rather, is it not correct to say that by citing the more complicated case, this is what the mishna teaches us: It is only in this case, where it is established that the thief stole an animal based on the testimony of two witnesses, and it is established that he slaughtered or sold it based on the testimony of one witness or based on his own admission, and where he does not obligate himself through his admission to pay the principal, that he is obligated to pay the fine.


讛讜讗 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 讚讜诪讬讗 讚注诇 驻讬 注讚 讗讞讚 诪讛 注诇 驻讬 注讚 讗讞讚 讻讬 讗转讬 注讚 讗讞讚 诪爪讟专祝 讘讛讚讬讛 诪讞讬讬讘 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 谞诪讬 讻讬 讗转讜 注讚讬诐 诪讞讬讬讘


The Gemara elaborates: In other words, it is only in that case, where the theft is established based on the testimony of two witnesses, that we say that liability based on his own admission is similar to the testimony of one witness, in that just as when the slaughter is established based on the testimony of one witness, if one other witness later comes he joins together with the first witness and together their testimony is rendered a valid testimony of two witnesses and the thief becomes liable to pay, so too, in a case when the slaughter is established based on his own admission, if witnesses subsequently come and testify, he becomes liable to pay the fine, as his admission would not have rendered him liable to pay any payment.


讗讘诇 讙谞讘 讜讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 注诇 驻讬 注讚 讗讞讚 讗讜 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 讚讞讬讬讘 注爪诪讜 讘拽专谉 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 讚讜诪讬讗 讚注诇 驻讬 注讚 讗讞讚


But if it is established that the thief stole an animal and slaughtered or sold it, all based on the testimony of one witness or based on his own admission, in which case through his admission he obligates himself to pay the principal amount, we do not say that when witnesses testify subsequent to his own admission it is similar to when they arrive subsequent to the testimony of one witness, and he is liable to pay the fine in both cases. Rather, since in this case his admission would have rendered him liable to pay the principal due to the fact that the theft was not established based on the testimony of two witnesses, it is considered a proper admission, which exempts him from paying the fine.


讘专讬讬转讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讗讛 注讚讬诐 砖诪诪砖诪砖讬谉 讜讘讗讬谉 讜讗诪专 讙谞讘转讬 讗讘诇 诇讗 讟讘讞转讬 讜诇讗 诪讻专转讬 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 讗诇讗 拽专谉 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬转谞讗 讜讗诪专 讙谞讘转讬 讗讘诇 诇讗 讟讘讞转讬 讜诇讗 诪讻专转讬 谞讬转谞讬 讗讜 讙谞讘转讬 讗讜 讟讘讞转讬 讜诪讻专转讬


The baraita that supports Rav Hamnuna鈥檚 opinion is the one cited earlier, as it is taught: If a thief saw witnesses who were approaching with the intent to testify against him, and at that point he said: I admit that I stole an animal, but I did not slaughter or sell it, he pays only the principal. Why do I need the baraita to teach: And the thief said: I admit that I stole an animal but I did not slaughter or sell it? Let it teach a simpler case, in which the thief said either: I stole the animal, or: I slaughtered it, or: I sold it.


讗诇讗 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 讙谞讘转讬 讛讜讗 讚讞讬讬讘 注爪诪讜 讘拽专谉 讚驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 讗诪专 诇讗 讙谞讘转讬 讜讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 砖讙谞讘 讜讞讝专 讜讗诪专 讟讘讞转讬 讜诪讻专转讬 讜讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 砖讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 讚诇讗 讞讬讬讘 注爪诪讜 讘拽专谉 讞讬讬讘 讗诇诪讗 讛讜讚讗讛 讚讟讘讬讞讛 诇讗讜 讛讜讚讗讛 讛讬讗


Rather, by choosing the more complicated case, this is what the baraita teaches us: The only reason that the thief is exempt from payment is that he says: I stole the animal, as in that case he obligated himself to pay the principal. But if he says: I did not steal, and witnesses came and testified that he did steal an animal, and subsequently he changed his claim and says: I slaughtered it, or: I sold it, and then witnesses came and confirmed that he slaughtered or sold it, in which case the thief did not obligate himself to pay the principal or any other payment, he would be liable to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment. Apparently, an admission to the slaughter of a stolen animal is not considered a valid admission, as such an admission does not obligate the perpetrator to pay a fine.


讗诪专讬 诇讗 讛讬讗 讙讜驻讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 讙谞讘转讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗诪专 诇讗 讟讘讞转讬 讜诇讗 诪讻专转讬 讜讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 砖讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗


The Gemara says, in rejection of this second proof: No, it is possible to explain the reason the tanna of the baraita chose to present this case in a different manner, as it teaches us this halakha itself: That once the thief says: I stole the animal, even if he also says: I did not slaughter or sell it, and later witnesses came and testified that he slaughtered or sold it, he is exempt from paying the fourfold or fivefold payment. What is the reason for this exemption?


转砖诇讜诪讬 (讗专讘注) 讞诪砖讛 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜诇讗 转砖诇讜诪讬 砖诇砖讛


The reason is that the Merciful One states in the Torah that there is a payment of four sheep for a sheep and five oxen for an ox (see Exodus 21:37). This indicates that a thief can be rendered liable to pay, respectively, a fourfold or fivefold payment, but not a fourfold payment for an ox, nor a threefold payment for a sheep. In other words, one should not view the fines as independent of each other, that if the thief is found with the animal he pays as a fine the double payment, and if he slaughtered or sold it he pays a different fine, i.e., the fourfold or fivefold payment. Rather, the fourfold or fivefold payment comprises the principal, the double payment, and an additional two or three times the principal. By admitting to his act of theft, the thief exempts himself from the double payment, and the remaining fine for slaughtering a sheep would be a threefold payment, or a fourfold payment for an ox, which are not mandated by the Torah.


诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讛讬讜 砖谞讬诐 诪注讬讚讬谉 砖讙谞讘 讜讛讬讜 砖谞讬诐 诪注讬讚讬诐 讗讜转讜 砖讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 讛讜讝诪讜 注讚讬 讙谞讬讘讛 注讚讜转 砖讘讟诇讛 诪拽爪转讛 讘讟诇讛 讻讜诇讛


The Gemara proposes: Let us say that the opinion of Rav Hamnuna and Rabbi Yo岣nan is the subject of a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. As it is taught in a baraita: If two witnesses testify that someone stole an animal, and two others testify against him that he slaughtered or sold the animal, and the witnesses who had testified concerning the theft were rendered conspiring witnesses, the thief is exempt from all payment, as testimony that was partially invalidated is entirely invalidated. If the testimony concerning the theft was undermined, the testimony concerning the slaughter or sale is thereby rendered irrelevant. Consequently, the alleged thief is exempt from any payment.


讛讜讝诪讜 注讚讬 讟讘讬讞讛 讛讜讗 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讜讛谉 诪砖诇诪讬谉 转砖诇讜诪讬 砖诇砖讛 诪砖讜诐 住讜诪讻讜住 讗诪专讜 讛谉 诪砖诇诪讬谉 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讜讛讜讗 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 砖诇砖讛 诇驻专 讜砖谞讬诐 诇讗讬诇


If the witnesses who testified concerning the slaughter or sale were rendered conspiring witnesses, but the testimony concerning the theft remains credible, the thief pays the double payment, and the conspiring witnesses pay a threefold payment, as that is the loss they sought to impose on the thief. The Sages said in the name of Sumakhos: The witnesses pay the double payment, and the thief pays a threefold payment for an ox and a twofold payment for a ram. This concludes the baraita.


讗讛讬讬讗 拽讗讬 住讜诪讻讜住 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗专讬砖讗 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇住讜诪讻讜住 注讚讜转 砖讘讟诇讛 诪拽爪转讛 讘讟诇讛 讻讜诇讛


The Gemara analyzes the statement of Sumakhos: To which clause in the baraita is Sumakhos referring? If we say that he is referring to the first clause, in which the testimony concerning the theft is invalidated, this is impossible. Doesn鈥檛 Sumakhos accept the principle that testimony that was partially invalidated is entirely invalidated, in this case rendering the testimony concerning the slaughter or sale irrelevant if there is no testimony concerning the theft?


讜讗诇讗 讗住讬驻讗 砖驻讬专 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讜讛诐 诪砖诇诪讬谉 转砖诇讜诪讬 砖诇砖讛


But rather, he must be referring to the latter clause of the baraita, in which the testimony concerning the slaughter or sale is invalidated. This, too, is impossible, as in this case the Rabbis, i.e., the first tanna of the baraita, say well, i.e., what they state is reasonable, and the thief pays the double payment and the witnesses pay a threefold payment. On what basis would Sumakhos dispute this ruling?


讗诇讗 诪讬诇转讗 讗讞专讬转讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讻讙讜谉 讚讗转讜 讘讬 转专讬 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讙谞讘转 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬谉 讙谞讘转讬 讜讟讘讞转讬 讜诪讻专转讬 诪讬讛讜 诇讗 讘驻谞讬讻诐 讙谞讘转讬 讜讗讬讬转讬 住讛讚讬 讜讗讝诪讬谞讛讜 讚诇讗 讘讗驻讬讬讛讜 讙谞讘 讜讗讬讬转讬 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 住讛讚讬 讜讗住讛讬讚讜 讘讬讛 讚讙谞讘 讜讟讘讞 讜诪讻专


Rather, it must be that Sumakhos is referring to a different case entirely, one that is not mentioned explicitly in the baraita, and a different matter is at the core of the dispute between them. Sumakhos is referring to a case where two people come and say to the thief: You stole an animal. The thief said to them in reply: Yes, I did steal the animal, and moreover, I slaughtered it, or: I sold it. But I did not steal it in your presence, and your testimony that you saw me steal it is false. And subsequently the thief brought new witnesses who rendered the original witnesses conspiring witnesses, by testifying that they were in a different place at the time they claimed that the theft occurred, thereby proving that the thief did not steal in their presence. And finally, the owner of the animal brought other witnesses who testified that the thief stole the animal and slaughtered or sold it.


讜讘讛讜讚讗转 讟讘讬讞讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬


And Sumakhos and the Rabbis disagree over whether an admission to the slaughter of a stolen animal is a valid admission, even though it does not lead to liability to pay any payment. Both parties to the dispute agree that the admission of a perpetrator only in response to the testimony of witnesses is not a valid admission.


讚专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讛讜讚讗讛 讚讙谞讬讘讛 诪讞诪转 注讚讬诐 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 诪讜讚讛 讛讜讚讗讛 讚讟讘讬讞讛 讛讜讚讗讛 讛讬讗 讜驻讟讜专


The dispute between them is that the Rabbis maintain that even though the thief鈥檚 admission concerning the theft itself is not a valid admission because it is due only to the witnesses who have testified against him that he admits his guilt, nevertheless, his admission concerning the slaughter of the animal is a valid admission, despite the fact it does not render the thief liable to pay a fine, and he is therefore exempt from the fourfold or fivefold payment. The conspiring witnesses must pay the double payment to the thief, since this is the amount of financial damage they sought to impose on him, while the thief pays the double payment to the owner, as valid witnesses ultimately testified that he stole the animal.


讜住讜诪讻讜住 住讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚讛讜讚讗讛 讚讙谞讬讘讛 诪讞诪转 注讚讬诐 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 诪讜讚讛 讚讟讘讬讞讛 诇讗讜 讛讜讚讗讛


And Sumakhos maintains that since the admission concerning the theft itself is not a valid admission because it was due only to the testimony of the witnesses that he admits his guilt, so too, the admission concerning the slaughter is not a valid admission, because it does not obligate him to pay a fine, as stated by Rav Hamnuna and Rabbi Yo岣nan.


讜讛谞讱 注讚讬诐 拽诪讗讬 讚讗讝诪讬谞讛讜 诪砖诇诪讬谉 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讜讛讜讗 诪砖诇诐 砖诇砖讛 诇驻专 讜砖谞讬诐 诇讗讬诇


And consequently, those first witnesses to the theft, who were rendered conspiring witnesses, pay the double payment, as that is the amount of financial damage they sought to impose on him, and the thief pays the double payment to the owner of the animal, as valid witnesses ultimately testified that he stole it, and since his admission is invalid he must pay an additional threefold payment, for a total of a fivefold payment for an ox, or a twofold payment, for a total of a fourfold payment, for a ram. If this is their dispute, Sumakhos is in agreement with the opinion of Rav Hamnuna and Rabbi Yo岣nan, while the Rabbis disagree with this opinion.


讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讛讜讚讗讛 讚讟讘讬讞讛 诇讗讜 讛讜讚讗讛 讛讬讗


Rav A岣, son of Rav Ika, said: No; it is possible to explain the baraita differently, as follows: Everyone, i.e., both Sumakhos and the Rabbis, maintains that an admission concerning the slaughter of a stolen animal is not a valid admission, as it does not render the perpetrator liable to pay any payment.


讗诇讗 讘注讚讜转 砖讗讬 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讝讬诪讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讻讙讜谉 讚讗转讜 住讛讚讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讙谞讘转 讜讗诪专 诇讛讜 讙谞讘转讬 讜讟讘讞转讬 讜诪讻专转讬 诪讬讛讜 诇讗 讘驻谞讬讻诐 讙谞讘转讬 讗诇讗 讘驻谞讬 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜讗讬讬转讬 住讛讚讬 讜讗讝诪讬谞讛讜 讚诇讗 讘讗驻讬讬讛讜 讙谞讘 讜讗转讜 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜讗住讛讬讚讜 讘讬讛 讚讙谞讘 讜讟讘讞 讜诪讻专


Rather, they disagree over the concept of testimony that you cannot render conspiratory testimony. Sumakhos and the Rabbis disagree with regard to a case where witnesses come and say to the thief: You stole an animal. And the thief said to them in response: I did steal an animal, and moreover, I slaughtered it, or: I sold it. But you are false witnesses, as it was not in your presence that I stole the animal, but in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so. And the thief subsequently brought witnesses who established the first set of witnesses as conspiring witnesses by testifying that the thief did not steal the animal in their presence. And finally, so-and-so and so-and-so, the two people mentioned by the thief, came and testified against the thief, saying that he stole the animal and also slaughtered or sold it.


讜讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讛讜讬讗 诇讛 注讚讜转 砖讗讬 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讝讬诪讛 讜讻诇 注讚讜转 砖讗讬 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讝讬诪讛 诇讗 讛讜讬讗 注讚讜转


And it is with regard to this point that they disagree, that the Rabbis maintain that the testimony of so-and-so and so-and-so is testimony that you cannot render conspiratory testimony, as the thief himself admits that their testimony is true. And any testimony that you cannot render conspiratory testimony is not considered valid testimony. Their testimony is therefore discounted, which leaves only the thief鈥檚 statement. The thief pays the money he admitted he owes, i.e., the principal of the theft, but he is exempt from paying a fine. Meanwhile, the first witnesses, who had been rendered conspiring witnesses, pay the thief the double payment.


讜住讜诪讻讜住 住讘专 注讚讜转 砖讗讬 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讝讬诪讛 讛讜讬讗 注讚讜转


And Sumakhos maintains that testimony that you cannot render conspiratory testimony is nevertheless considered valid testimony. Therefore, the testimony of so-and-so and so-and-so is valid, and the thief must pay the fourfold or fivefold payment. Sumakhos states that the thief pays a threefold payment for an ox and a twofold payment for a ram. The reason is that the thief receives a double payment from the first, conspiring witnesses, which he gives to the owner of the animal, along with the remainder of the payment. This amounts to a threefold payment for an ox and twofold payment for a ram that he is required to pay from his own funds.


讜讛讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讚注讚讜转 砖讗讬 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讝讬诪讛 诇讗 讛讜讬讗 注讚讜转 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讬讚注讬 讘讗讬讝讛 讬讜诐 讘讗讬讝讛 砖注讛 讚诇讬讻讗 诇注讚讜转 讻诇诇 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 住讬讜注讬 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 诪住讬讬注讬 诇讬讛


The Gemara asks: But do we not maintain as an accepted principle that testimony that you cannot render conspiratory testimony is not valid testimony? It is not reasonable to suggest that Sumakhos would disagree with that principle. The Gemara answers: This statement applies in a case where witnesses say that they do not know on which day or at which time of day the events in question occurred, in which case no one could ever say to them: You were in a different place at that time, thereby rendering them conspiring witnesses. With regard to such a case one can say that in effect there is no testimony at all, as the vague statement of the witnesses does not allow them to be prosecuted as conspiring witnesses. But here the thief is supporting their testimony, which renders it more credible.


讗诪专 诪专 讛谉 诪砖诇诪讬谉 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 诪讚拽讗 诪讜讚讛 讚讙谞讘 拽专谉 讘注讬 砖诇讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 转谞讬


The Master said in the baraita that the Sages stated in the name of Sumakhos: The witnesses pay the double payment. The Gemara asks: From the fact that the thief admits that he stole the animal, he is required to pay the principal amount regardless of any subsequent testimony provided by witnesses. Why, then, should the conspiring witnesses be required to pay a double payment, which includes the principal amount? Rabbi Elazar says in the name of Rav: Teach the baraita differently, and instead say that Sumakhos said that the witnesses are liable for


Scroll To Top