Bava Kamma — Daf 75a

שלא בבית דין הוה קאי

והתניא אמר לו אין בדבריך כלום שכבר הודית

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

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:

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

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

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

ושמואל אמר לך ההוא מבעי ליה לגנב עצמו כדתנא דבי חזקיה

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

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

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

לשמואל ודאי תנאי היא לרב מי לימא תנאי היא

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

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

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

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

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

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

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, 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'?  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',  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,  whereas the Tanna, who reported 'as you already confessed', was of opinion that the confession was made at the court of law. 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]: If it [was to] be found  by witnesses, it be [considered] found  in the consideration of the judges, excepting thus a case where a defendant incriminates himself.  Now why do I require this reasoning, seeing that this ruling can be derived from the text 'whom the judges shall condemn',  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 'If to be found it be found' was required to make the thief himself subject to double payment, as taught at the School of Hezekiah. Rab objected to [this view of] Samuel [from the following Baraitha:]  If a thief notices that witnesses are preparing themselves to appear  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?  — 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?  — 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. Now according to Samuel, Tannaim certainly differed in this matter. Are we to say that also according to Rab Tannaim differed in this?  — 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]. 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.  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]  he was trying to exempt himself from any liability whatever. [But] Raba said: I got the better  of the elders of the School of Rab,  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  he was not answered thus. It was similarly stated:  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'?