Bava Kamma 149

שלא בבית דין הוה קאי

— He was, however, at that time not sitting in the court of law. But has it not been taught that he said to him: 'Your words have no force in law, as you have already confessed'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which implies that even if witnesses would subsequently appear and testify to the same effect, it would still be of no avail, thus agreeing with the view of Rab. ');">¹</span>

והתניא אמר לו אין בדבריך כלום שכבר הודית

Must we not then say that Tannaim were divided on this matter, so that the Tanna who reported 'as there are no witnesses for the slave',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the text runs in the former teaching and which implies that if witnesses should come and testify for the slave he would obtain his freedom, in apparent contradiction to the view of Rab. ');">²</span>

מאי לאו תנאי היא האי תנא דאמר שכבר אין לך עדים סבר מודה בקנס ואחר כך באו עדים חייב והאי תנא דאמר שכבר הודית סבר מודה בקנס ואח"כ באו עדים פטור

would maintain that if one confessed to liability for a fine and subsequently witnesses appeared and testified [to the same effect], he should be liable, whereas the Tanna who reported 'as you have already confessed', would maintain that if one confessed to liability for a fine, though witnesses subsequently appeared [and corroborated the confession], he would be exempt? — No, they might both have agreed that if one confessed to the liability of a fine, though witnesses subsequently appeared [and testified to the same effect], he would be exempt, and the point on which they differed might have been this: the Tanna, who reported 'as there are no witnesses for the slave', was of opinion that the confession took place outside the court of law,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Where a confession is not regarded in the eye of the law as legal so as to bar subsequent evidence.] ');">³</span>

לא דכ"ע מודה בקנס ואח"כ באו עדים פטור ובהא קמיפלגי האי תנא דאמר שכבר אין לך עדים סבר חוץ לב"ד הוה והך תנא דאמר שכבר הודית סבר בבית דין הוה:

whereas the Tanna, who reported 'as you already confessed', was of opinion that the confession was made at the court of law.

איתמר מודה בקנס ואח"כ באו עדים רב אמר פטור ושמואל אמר חייב

It was stated: If a man confesses to liability for a fine, and subsequently witnesses appear [and corroborate the confession], Rab held that he would be quit, whereas Samuel held that he would be liable. Raba b. Ahilai said: The reason of Rab was this. [We expound]: <i>If it</i> [was to] <i>be found</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII. 3. ');">⁴</span>

אמר רבא בר אהילאי מאי טעמא דרב (שמות כב, ג) אם המצא בעדים תמצא בדיינין פרט למרשיע את עצמו

by witnesses, <i>it be</i> [considered] <i>found</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII. 3. ');">⁴</span>

למה לי (שמות כב, ח) מאשר ירשיעון נפקא אלא ש"מ מודה בקנס ואח"כ באו עדים פטור

in the consideration of the judges, excepting thus a case where a defendant incriminates himself.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 64b. ');">⁵</span>

ושמואל אמר לך ההוא מבעי ליה לגנב עצמו כדתנא דבי חזקיה

Now why do I require this reasoning, seeing that this ruling can be derived from the text <i>'whom the judges shall condemn'</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 8. ');">⁶</span>

איתיביה רב לשמואל ראה עדים שממשמשים ובאים ואמר גנבתי אבל לא טבחתי ולא מכרתי אינו משלם אלא קרן אמר ליה הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שחזרו עדים לאחוריהם

which implies 'not him who condemns himself'? It must be to show that if a man confesses to liability for a fine, even though witnesses subsequently appear [and testify to the same effect], there would be exemption. Samuel, however, might say to you that the doubling of the verb in the verse<i> 'If to be found it be found'</i> was required to make the thief himself subject to double payment, as taught at the School of Hezekiah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 370. ');">⁷</span>

והא מדתני סיפא רבי אלעזר בר' שמעון אומר יבואו עדים ויעידו מכלל דתנא קמא סבר לא

Rab objected to [this view of] Samuel [from the following Baraitha:]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Shebu. VIII, 4, and Tosaf. infra 75b, s.v. [H]. ');">⁸</span>

אמר ליה שמואל לאו איכא ר' אלעזר בר' שמעון דקאי כוותי אנא דאמרי כר' אלעזר בר' שמעון

If a thief notices that witnesses are preparing themselves to appear<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before the court to give evidence against him. ');">⁹</span>

לשמואל ודאי תנאי היא לרב מי לימא תנאי היא

and he confesses 'I have committed the theft [of an ox] but I neither slaughtered it nor sold it', he would not have to pay anything but the principal?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As confession to the liability for a fine carries exemption from the fine. ');">¹⁰</span>

אמר לך רב אנא דאמרי אפי' לרבי אלעזר בר' שמעון עד כאן לא קאמר ר' אלעזר בר' שמעון התם אלא משום דקא מודי מחמת ביעתותא דעדים אבל הכא דמודה מעצמו אפי' ר' אלעזר בר' שמעון מודה

— He [Samuel] replied: We are dealing here with a case where, for instance, the witnesses drew back from giving any evidence in the matter. But since it is stated In the concluding clause: 'R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon says that the witnesses should still come forward and testify,' must we not conclude that the first Tanna maintained otherwise?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that the evidence of the witnesses would be of no avail. ');">¹¹</span>

אמר רב המנונא מסתברא מילתיה דרב באומר גנבתי ובאו עדים שגנב פטור שהרי חייב עצמו בקרן

— Samuel thereupon said to him: Is there at least not R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon who concurs with me? I follow R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon.

אבל אמר לא גנבתי ובאו עדים שגנב וחזר ואמר טבחתי ומכרתי ובאו עדים שטבח ומכר חייב שהרי פטר עצמו מכלום

Now according to Samuel, Tannaim certainly differed in this matter. Are we to say that also according to Rab Tannaim differed in this?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And that R. Eleazar was against him. ');">¹²</span>

אמר רבא [קפחתי] לסבי דבי רב דהא רבן גמליאל פוטר עצמו מכלום הוה וקאמר ליה רב חסדא לרב הונא ולא קא משני ליה

— Rab might rejoin: My statement can hold good even according to R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon. For R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon would not have expressed the view he did there save for the fact that the thief made his confession because of his fear of the witnesses, whereas here he confessed out of his own free will, even R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon might have agreed [that the confession would bar any pending liability].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And no witnesses should be permitted to give evidence in the matter. ');">¹³</span>

איתמר נמי אמר ר' חייא בר אבא אמר ר' יוחנן גנבתי ובאו עדים שגנב פטור שהרי חייב עצמו בקרן אבל אמר לא גנב ובאו עדים שגנב וחזר ואמר טבחתי ומכרתי ובאו עדים שטבח ומכר חייב שהרי פטר עצמו מכלום

R. Hamnuna stated: It stands to reason that the ruling of Rab was confined to the case of a thief saying, 'I have committed a theft' and witnesses then coming [and testifying] that he had indeed committed the theft, in which case he is quit, as he had [by the confession] made himself liable at least for the principal.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which proves that the confession was genuine. ');">¹⁴</span>

אמר רב אשי מתניתין וברייתא נמי דיקא מתניתין דתנן גנב על פי שנים וטבח ומכר ע"פ עד אחד או על פי עצמו משלם תשלומי כפל ואינו משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה

But if he first said, 'I did not commit the theft,' but when witnesses appeared and declared that he did commit the theft, he turned round and said, 'I even slaughtered [the stolen sheep or ox] or sold it,' and witnesses subsequently 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 this confession]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which was thus not a genuine confession. ');">¹⁵</span>

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'?