Commentary for Bava Kamma 150:4

ברייתא דתניא ראה עדים שממשמשין ובאין ואמר גנבתי אבל לא טבחתי ולא מכרתי אינו משלם אלא קרן למה לי למיתנא ואמר גנבתי אבל לא טבחתי ולא מכרתי ניתני או גנבתי או טבחתי ומכרתי

Now, what need is there for the words, 'and he confessed, I have committed the theft [of an ox] but I neither slaughtered it, nor sold it'? Why not simply state 'I have committed the theft [of an ox], or I slaughtered it or I sold it'? Is not the purpose to indicate that it was only where the thief confessed, 'I have committed the theft [of an ox]'. where it was he who by confession made himself liable for the principal, that he would be exempt from the fine, whereas if he had stated 'I have not committed any theft', and when witnesses arrived and testified that he did commit a theft, he turned round and confessed 'I have even slaughtered it or sold it', and witnesses subsequently appeared [and testified] that he had indeed slaughtered it or sold it, in which case it was not he who made himself liable for the principal, he would have to be liable for the fine, thus proving that a confession merely regarding the act of slaughter should not be considered a confession [to bar the pending liability of a fine]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supporting thus the distinction made by R. Hamnuna. ');">⁴</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 150:4. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.