Bava Kamma 148

ניפוק בעינו הפיל את שינו ניפוק בשינו סימא את עינו והפיל את שינו ניפוק בעינו ושינו

the slave goes out free in lieu of his eye;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 26. ');">¹</span>

אמר אביי עליך אמר קרא (שמות כא, כו) תחת עינו ולא תחת עינו ושינו תחת שינו ולא תחת שינו ועינו

when he knocks out his slave's tooth the slave goes out in lieu of his tooth;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 27. ');">²</span>

אמר רב אידי בר אבין אף אנן נמי תנינא גנב ע"פ שנים וטבח ומכר על פיהם ונמצאו זוממין משלמין לו את הכל

and so also when he puts out his eye and knocks out his tooth the slave should go out in lieu of both his eye and his tooth [and no payment for either of these should have to be made]? — Abaye said to him: It is to rule out this idea of yours that Scripture says: 'For his eye's sake',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 427. n. 7. ');">³</span>

מאי לאו דהעידו על הגניבה וחזרו והעידו על הטביחה והוזמו על הגניבה וחזרו והוזמו על הטביחה

implying 'not for the sake of both his eye and tooth'; 'for his tooth's sake'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 427, n. 8. ');">⁴</span>

והא כיון שהוזמו על הגניבה לגבי טביחה הוה להו מוכחשין וקתני משלמין לו את הכל ואי ס"ד הכחשה לאו תחילת הזמה היא אטביחה אמאי משלמין אלא לאו ש"מ הכחשה תחילת הזמה היא

but not for the sake of both his tooth and his eye.

אמרי הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שהוזמו על הטביחה תחילה

R. Idi b. Abin said: We have also learnt to the same effect:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case made out by Raba where a contradiction of the subject matter of evidence was followed by proof of an alibi. ');">⁵</span>

ובפלוגתא עדים שהוכחשו ולבסוף הוזמו ר' יוחנן ור"א חד אמר נהרגין וחד אמר אין נהרגין

IF A THIEF [IS CONVICTED OF THE THEFT OF AN OX] ON THE EVIDENCE OF TWO WITNESSES, AND OF THE SLAUGHTER OR SALE OF IT ON THE EVIDENCE OF THE SAME TWO, AND THESE WITNESSES ARE SUBSEQUENTLY PROVED <i>ZOMEMIM</i>, THEY MUST PAY [THE ACCUSED] IN FULL. Does this not mean that the witnesses have first given evidence regarding the theft and then [some time later] testified to the slaughter, and that they were first proved <i>zomemim</i> regarding the theft and then [some time later] proved <i>zomemim</i> [also] regarding the slaughter? Now, the fact that they were proved <i>zomemim</i> regarding the theft is in itself a confutation of their evidence regarding the slaughter,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if the evidence regarding the theft fell to the ground it carried with it the evidence regarding the slaughter of the stolen animal. ');">⁶</span>

תסתיים דר"א הוא דאמר אין נהרגין דאמר ר"א עדים שהוכחשו בנפש לוקין

and it is nevertheless stated that 'THEY MUST PAY THE ACCUSED IN FULL'. But if you assume that a confutation is not the first step in a subsequent proof of an alibi, why should they pay the retaliation penalty for the slaughter? Does not this then show confutation is a first step in a subsequent proof of an alibi? — It may, however, be said that we are dealing here with a case where for example they were first proved <i>zomemim</i> regarding the slaughter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which of course did not affect their evidence regarding the theft which was given on an earlier occasion. ');">⁷</span>

ואי ס"ד ר"א הוא דאמר נהרגין אמאי לוקין הוה ליה לאו שניתן לאזהרת מיתת ב"ד וכל לאו שניתן לאזהרת מיתת ב"ד אין לוקין עליו

In this argument [between Raba and Abaye, earlier Sages already differed]: In the case where witnesses [testifying to a capital charge] were first contradicted by another set of witnesses and subsequently also proved <i>zomemim</i> [by a third set of witnesses] R. Johanan and R. Eleazar differed: one said they would be subject to the death penalty,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Agreeing thus with view of Raba. ');">⁸</span>

אלא לאו ש"מ ר"א הוא דאמר אין נהרגין תסתיים

whereas the other said they would not be subject to the death penalty. There is proof that R. Eleazar was the one who said they would not be subject to the death penalty; for R. Eleazar said: 'If witnesses were confuted [but not proved <i>zomemim</i>] as to their evidence regarding a charge of murder, they would be lashed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because they transgressed the negative commandment, 'Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour'. Ex. XX, 13. and the punishment of thirty-nine lashes is administered for breaking such and similar negative commandments. ');">⁹</span>

לוקין תרי ותרי נינהו מאי חזית דסמכת אהני סמוך אהני

Now, if you assume that R. Eleazar was the one who said that [were they subsequently to be proved <i>zomemim</i>] they would be subject to the death penalty, why should they be lashed [when confuted]? Should we not regard the prohibition here laid down<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XX. 13. ');">¹⁰</span>

אמר אביי בבא הרוג ברגליו:

as a preliminary warning that the death penalty will be exacted by a court of law,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Should the same witnesses afterwards become zomemim. ');">¹¹</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> גנב ע"פ שנים וטבח ומכר ע"פ עד אחד או ע"פ עצמו משלם תשלומי כפל ואינו משלם תשלומי ד' וה'

and every prohibition which can serve as a preliminary warning of a death penalty to be exacted by a court of law does not entail liability for lashes?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Sanh. 86b; Mak. 13b and Shebu. 4a. ');">¹²</span>

גנב וטבח בשבת גנב וטבח לע"ז גנב משל אביו ומת אביו ואח"כ טבח ומכר גנב והקדיש ואח"כ טבח ומכר משלם תשלומי כפל ואינו משלם תשלומי ד' וה'

Does not this show that R. Eleazar was the one who said that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Were they even subsequently proved zomemim. ');">¹³</span>

ר"ש אומר קדשים שחייב באחריותם משלם תשלומי ד' וה' שאין חייב באחריותם פטור:

they would be subject to the death penalty?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the prohibition of this offence could thus never be able to serve as a warning of a pending execution at a court of law and lashes could therefore be administered. ');">¹⁴</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> על פי עד אחד פשיטא

— This may indeed be regarded as proved.

אמרי הא קמ"ל ע"פ עצמו דומיא דע"פ עד אחד מה ע"פ [עד] אחד כי אתי עד אחד מצטרף בהדיה מיחייב ע"פ עצמו נמי כי אתו עדים מיחייב

[It has been stated that where witnesses were confuted but not proved <i>zomemim</i> as to their evidence regarding a capital charge] 'they would be lashed'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because they transgressed the negative commandment, 'Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour'. Ex. XX, 13. and the punishment of thirty-nine lashes is administered for breaking such and similar negative commandments. ');">⁹</span>

לאפוקי מדרב הונא אמר רב דאמר רב הונא אמר רב מודה בקנס ואח"כ באו עדים פטור:

But as this is a case where two witnesses contradict other two witnesses, how then could it appear right to you to rely upon those of the second set? Why not rely upon the others? — Abaye replied: This could be so only where the alleged victim came to us on his own feet [thus disproving the evidence of the first set].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case their falsity has been proved beyond any doubt. ');">¹⁵</span>

גופא אמר רב הונא אמר רב מודה בקנס ואח"כ באו עדים פטור: איתיביה רב חסדא לרב הונא מעשה בר"ג שסימא את עין טבי עבדו והיה שמח שמחה גדולה

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF THE THEFT [OF AN OX OR A SHEEP] WAS TESTIFIED TO BY TWO WITNESSES,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Deut. XIX, 15. ');">¹⁶</span>

מצאו לר' יהושע אמר לו אי אתה יודע שטבי עבדי יצא לחירות אמר לו למה א"ל שסמיתי את עינו אמר לו אין בדבריך כלום שכבר אין לו עדים

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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the act of stealing testified to by two witnesses. ');">¹⁷</span>

הא יש לו עדים חייב ושמעינן מינה מודה בקנס ואח"כ באו עדים חייב

BUT WOULD NOT HAVE TO MAKE FOUR-FOLD AND FIVE-FOLD PAYMENTS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the act of slaughter or sale was testified to by one witness who, in matters of fine, could be of no effect at all even for the purpose of imposing an oath. [V. J. Shebu. VI, and S. Strashun's Glosses, a.l.] so also is the admission of the thief himself of no avail in these matters. ');">¹⁸</span>

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>