Commentary for Bava Kamma 148:22

א"ל שאני ר"ג דלא בפני ב"ד אודי והא ר' יהושע אב בית דין הוה

IF HE STOLE IT AND SLAUGHTERED IT ON THE SABBATH DAY,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being a capital offence in which all possible civil liabilities have to merge. ');">¹⁹</span> OR IF HE STOLE IT AND SLAUGHTERED IT FOR THE SERVICE OF IDOLS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being a capital offence in which all possible civil liabilities have to merge. ');">¹⁹</span> OR IF HE STOLE IT FROM HIS OWN FATHER WHO SUBSEQUENTLY DIED AND THE THIEF THEN SLAUGHTERED IT OR SOLD IT,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that at the time of the slaughter or sale the thief was a joint owner of the animal. ');">²⁰</span> OR IF HE STOLE IT AND CONSECRATED IT [TO THE TEMPLE],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Temple property is not subject to the law of the fine. ');">²¹</span> AND AFTERWARDS HE SLAUGHTERED IT OR SOLD IT, HE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE DOUBLE PAYMENT BUT WOULD NOT HAVE TO MAKE FOUR-FOLD AND FIVE-FOLD PAYMENTS. R. SIMEON, HOWEVER, SAYS: IN THE CASE OF CONSECRATED CATTLE, THE LOSS OF WHICH THE OWNER HAS TO MAKE GOOD, THE THIEF HAS TO MAKE FOUR-FOLD OR FIVE-FOLD PAYMENT,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. the discussion in Gemara. ');">²²</span> BUT IN THE CASE OF THOSE THE LOSS OF WHICH THE OWNER HAS NOT TO MAKE GOOD, THE THIEF IS EXEMPT. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Is it not obvious that a testimony from the mouth of one witness [should impose no liability to pay]? — It may, however, be said that what we are told here is that confession by the thief himself is analogous to evidence borne by one witness: just as in the case of evidence given by one witness, if another witness should come along and join him, the thief would be made liable;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. B.B. 32a and Sanh. 30a. ');">²³</span> so also in the case of confession by the thief himself, if witnesses should come along [and corroborate it], he would become liable. This deviates from the view of R. Huna stated on behalf of Rab. For R. Huna stated that Rab said: If a man confessed to a liability for a fine, even though witnesses subsequently appeared [and gave evidence to the same effect], he would be exempt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the fine; cf. supra p. 62. ');">²⁴</span> The above text states: R. Huna stated that Rab said: If a man confessed to a liability for a fine, even though witnesses subsequently appeared [and gave evidence to the same effect], he would be exempt. R. Hisda objected to [this view of] R. Huna [from the following]: It happened that R. Gamaliel [by accident] put out the eye of Tabi<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Suk. II, 1 and Ber. II, 7. ');">²⁵</span> his slave.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who would thereby receive his freedom in accordance with Ex. XXI. 26. ');">²⁶</span> He rejoiced over it very much, [as he was eager to have this meritorious slave set free],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He was, however, unable to manumit him as it was considered a sin to manumit heathen slaves. V. Ber. 47b and Git. 38a. ');">²⁷</span> and when he met R. Joshua he said to him: 'Do you know that Tabi my slave has obtained his freedom?' 'How was that'? said the other. 'Because', he replied, 'I have [accidentally] put out his eye.' Said R. Joshua to him.' 'Your words have no force in law, since there were no witnesses for the slave.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the obligation imposed on a man to let his slave go free for his eye's sake and for his tooth's sake is only a matter of fine. ');">²⁸</span> This of course implies that had witnesses at that time been available for the slave, R. Gamaliel would have been under obligation [to set him free]. Does not this show us that if a man confesses to a liability for a fine, if subsequently witnesses appear and testify to the same effect, he would be liable?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In contradiction to the view of Rab stated by R. Huna. ');">²⁹</span> — R. Huna, however, said to him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Hisda. ');">³⁰</span> that this case of R. Gamaliel was different altogether, as he made his confession not in the presence of the court of Law.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And is therefore not considered in the eye of the law a legal confession to bar subsequent evidence. ');">³¹</span> But was R. Joshua not the president of the Court of law?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Shortly after the death of R. Johanan b. Zakkai, v. Halevy, Doroth, I.e., p. 154, contra Weiss, Dor, 130.] ');">³²</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 148:22. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.