Commentary for Bava Kamma 150:2

הוא דאמרינן ע"פ עצמו דומיא דע"פ עד אחד מה ע"פ עד אחד כי אתי עד אחד מצטרף בהדיה מחייב על פי עצמו נמי כי אתו עדים מחייב

which made him liable for the principal, that we argue that confession by the thief himself is meant to be analogous to the testimony borne by one witness? So that just as in the case of testimony by one witness, as soon as another witness appears and joins him liability would be established, so also in the case of confession by the thief himself, if witnesses subsequently appear and testify to the same effect he would become liable. If, however, the very theft and slaughter [or theft and] sale were testified to by one witness or by the thief himself, in which case the confession made him liable at least for the principal, we would not argue that confession by the thief himself should be analogous to the testimony borne by one witness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But a confession of this nature bars subsequent evidence in accordance with the view of Rab. ');">²</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 150:2. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.