Commentary for Bava Kamma 150:22

אמר מר הן משלמין תשלומי כפל מדקא מודה דגנב קרן בעי שלומי אמר רבי אלעזר משמיה דרב תני

should have the usual effect of confession and exempt him from the fine, whereas Symmachus held that since regarding the theft it was because of witnesses that he confessed, the confession of the slaughter should not have the [full] effect of a confession [as it did not tend to establish any civil liability], so that the first witnesses who were found <i>zomemim</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Regarding the theft. ');">²⁰</span> would have to pay him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The thief. ');">²¹</span> double, whereas he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The thief. ');">²¹</span> would have to pay three-fold for an ox and double for a ram!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the prescribed fine for the slaughter or sale. This therefore proves that the Rabbis maintained that a confession which does not involve the liability of the principal should still have the effect of a confession, in contradiction to R. Hamnuna, whereas Symmachus would maintain that it should be devoid of the absolute exempting effect of a confession to liability for a fine. ');">²²</span> — R. Aha the son of R. Ika said: No, all might agree that the confession regarding the slaughter would not have the [exempting] effect of a confession, and where they differ here is regarding evidence given by witnesses whom you would be unable to make subject to the law applicable to <i>zomemim</i>, as e.g., where two witnesses came and said to him: 'You have committed the theft [of the ox]', and he said to them: 'I did commit the theft [of the ox] and even slaughtered it or sold it; it was, however, not in your presence that I committed the theft, but in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so,' and he in fact brought witnesses who proved an alibi against the first witnesses, that it was not in their presence that he committed the theft, but so-and-so and so-and-so [mentioned by the thief] came and testified against him that he did commit the theft [of the ox] and slaughtered it or sold it. The point at issue in this case would be as follows: The Rabbis maintain that this last evidence was given by witnesses whom you would [of course] be unable to make subject to the law applicable to <i>zomemim</i> [as they were pointed out by the thief himself],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Against whom they gave evidence. ');">²³</span> and any evidence given by witnesses whom you would be unable to make subject to the law applicable to <i>zomemim</i> could not be considered valid evidence,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [The thief would accordingly be exempt from the fine for the slaughter and sale of which he stands convicted, as it were on his own evidence.] ');">²⁴</span> whereas Symmachus maintained that evidence given by witnesses whom you would be unable to make subject to the law applicable to <i>zomemim</i> would be valid evidence.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Hence the thief, on his part. would have to pay the exclusive fine for the slaughter or sale.] ');">²⁵</span> But is it not an established tradition with us<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Sanh. 41a and 78a. ');">²⁶</span> that any evidence given by witnesses whom you would be unable to make subject to the law applicable to <i>zomemim</i> could not be considered valid evidence? — This is the case only where the witnesses do not know the exact day or the exact hour of the occurrence alleged by them,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Sanh. 40a. ');">²⁷</span> in which case there is in fact no evidence at all, whereas here [your inability to make them subject to the law applicable to <i>zomemim</i> was only because] the thief himself was in every way corroborating their statements. The Master stated: 'They<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the witnesses who gave evidence regarding the theft and were proved zomemim. ');">²⁸</span> would have to make double payment. But since in this case the thief admitted that he did commit the theft, so that he would surely be required to pay the principal, [why should the witnesses proved <i>zomemim</i> have to make double payment?]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They should have to pay no more than the amount of a single payment. ');">²⁹</span> — Said R. Eleazar in the name of Rab: Read:

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 150:22. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.