Commentary for Bava Kamma 149:19

למה לי דתני גנב על פי שנים ליתני גנב וטבח [ומכר] על פי עד אחד או על פי עצמו אינו משלם אלא הקרן

he was trying to exempt himself from any liability whatever. [But] Raba said: I got the better<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In this matter. ');">¹⁶</span> of the elders of the School of Rab,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As R. Hamnuna was of the elders of the School of Rab; v. Sanh. 17b. [Var. lec.: Raba said to him (to R. Hamnuna], You have got the better of the elders of the school of Rab (viz. R. Huna), v. Tosaf.] ');">¹⁷</span> for R. Gamaliel [by confessing the putting out of his slave's eye] was but exempting himself from any liability, and yet when R. Hisda stated this case [as a proof] against R. Huna<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [I.e., against the ruling R. Huna reported in the name of Rab.] ');">¹⁸</span> he was not answered thus. It was similarly stated:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In support of the distinction made by R. Hamnuna. ');">¹⁹</span> R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan, [that if a thief confessed] 'I have committed a theft', and witnesses then came along [and testified] that he had indeed committed the theft, he would be exempt, as in this case he had [by the confession] made himself liable at least for the principal; for where he had first said 'I did not commit the theft', but when witnesses appeared and declared that he did commit the theft he again came and said, 'I even slaughtered [the stolen sheep or ox] or sold it, and witnesses again came and testified that he had indeed slaughtered it or sold it, he would be liable to pay [four-fold or five-fold payment], as by his confession he was but exempting himself from any liability whatever. R. Ashi said: [Texts from] our Mishnah and the [above] Baraitha tend likewise to prove this distinction. From our Mishnah [the proof is] as we have learnt: IF THE THEFT [OF AN OX OR SHEEP] WAS TESTIFIED TO BY TWO WITNESSES, WHEREAS THE SLAUGHTER OR SALE OF IT WAS TESTIFIED TO BY ONLY ONE WITNESS OR BY THE THIEF HIMSELF, HE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE DOUBLE PAYMENT BUT WOULD NOT HAVE TO MAKE FOUR-FOLD AND FIVE-FOLD PAYMENTS. Now, what is the need for the words. IF THE THEFT WAS TESTIFIED TO BY TWO WITNESSES? Why not simply state: 'If the theft and slaughter or [theft and] sale were testified to by one witness or by the thief himself, he would not have to pay anything but the principal alone'?

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 149:19. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.