## Bava Kamma Daf 74b

###### Bava Kamma 74b:1
[Bava Kamma 74b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/74b:1)

נִיפּוֹק בְּעֵינוֹ; הִפִּיל אֶת שִׁינּוֹ – נִיפּוֹק בְּשִׁינּוֹ; סִימֵּא אֶת עֵינוֹ וְהִפִּיל אֶת שִׁינּוֹ – נִיפּוֹק בְּעֵינוֹ וְשִׁינּוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
the slave **should go** free **on account of his eye,** and if he **knocked out his tooth** he **should go** free **on account of his tooth,** and if the master both **blinded his eye and knocked out his tooth,** the slave **should go** free **on account of** both **his eye and his tooth,** without the master having to pay damages for the loss of his tooth.


###### Bava Kamma 74b:2
[Bava Kamma 74b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/74b:2)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, עָלֶיךָ אָמַר קְרָא: ״תַּחַת עֵינוֹ״ – וְלֹא תַּחַת עֵינוֹ וְשִׁינּוֹ, ״תַּחַת שִׁינּוֹ״ – וְלֹא תַּחַת שִׁינּוֹ וְעֵינוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said** to him in response: **With regard to your** claim, **the verse states:** “And if a man smites the eye of his slave or the eye of his maidservant and destroys it, he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake” (Exodus 21:26). The phrase **“for his eye’s sake”** indicates: **But not for the sake of** both **his eye and his tooth.** The same can be inferred from the subsequent verse: “And if he smites out his bondman’s tooth or his bondwoman’s tooth, he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake” (Exodus 21:27). The phrase **“for his tooth’s sake”** indicates: **But not for the sake of** both **his eye and his tooth.**


###### Bava Kamma 74b:3
[Bava Kamma 74b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/74b:3)

אָמַר רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין, אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: גָּנַב עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם, וְטָבַח וּמָכַר עַל פִּיהֶם, וְנִמְצְאוּ זוֹמְמִין – מְשַׁלְּמִין לוֹ אֶת הַכֹּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara returns to Rava’s opinion that the contradiction of testimony is the start of determining that testimony is conspiring testimony. **Rav Idi bar Avin said: We too** can **learn** from the mishna that Rava’s claim is correct, as it teaches (72b): If one **stole** an ox or a sheep, as established **based on** the testimony of **two** witnesses, **and he** subsequently **slaughtered** the animal **or sold** it, also **based on** the testimony of the same witnesses, **and** these witnesses **were found** to be **conspiring witnesses,** these conspiring witnesses **must pay everything,** i.e., not only the principal amount but also the fourfold or fivefold payment.


###### Bava Kamma 74b:4
[Bava Kamma 74b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/74b:4)

מַאי, לָאו דְּהֵעִידוּ עַל הַגְּנֵיבָה וְחָזְרוּ וְהֵעִידוּ עַל הַטְּבִיחָה, וְהוּזַּמּוּ עַל הַגְּנֵיבָה וְחָזְרוּ וְהוּזַּמּוּ עַל הַטְּבִיחָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What, is it not** referring to a case **where they testified concerning the theft and then testified concerning the slaughter, and they were** subsequently **rendered conspiring witnesses with regard to the theft and then were rendered conspiring witnesses with regard to the slaughter?**


###### Bava Kamma 74b:5
[Bava Kamma 74b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/74b:5)

וְהָא כֵּיוָן שֶׁהוּזַּמּוּ עַל הַגְּנֵיבָה – לְגַבֵּי טְבִיחָה הָווּ לְהוּ מוּכְחָשִׁין, וְקָתָנֵי: מְשַׁלְּמִין לוֹ אֶת הַכֹּל. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ הַכְחָשָׁה לָאו תְּחִילַּת הֲזָמָה הִיא, אַטְּבִיחָה אַמַּאי מְשַׁלְּמִין? אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ הַכְחָשָׁה תְּחִילַּת הֲזָמָה הִיא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Idi bar Avin states his inference: **But once they were rendered conspiring witnesses with regard to the theft,** their testimony **with regard to the slaughter** is in effect **contradicted,** i.e., nullified, as testimony concerning the slaughter of an animal without prior testimony establishing that the animal was stolen is meaningless. **And** yet the mishna **teaches** that the witnesses **must pay everything. And if it enters your mind** that the **contradiction** of testimony **is not the start of determining that** testimony is **conspiring** testimony, **why should they pay** a fine **for** lying about the **slaughter?** Their testimony concerning the slaughter was rendered irrelevant before it was established as conspiring testimony. **Rather,** must one **not conclude from** this mishna that the **contradiction** of testimony **is the start of determining that** testimony is **conspiring** testimony?


###### Bava Kamma 74b:6
[Bava Kamma 74b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/74b:6)

אָמְרִי: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁהוּזַּמּוּ עַל הַטְּבִיחָה תְּחִילָּה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **say** in refutation of this inference: **With what are we dealing here?** We are dealing with a case **where** the witnesses were **rendered conspiring witnesses with regard to the slaughter first,** before they were rendered conspiring witnesses in their testimony concerning the theft itself. In this case, the testimony concerning the slaughter was not rendered irrelevant before it was rendered conspiring testimony.


###### Bava Kamma 74b:7
[Bava Kamma 74b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/74b:7)

וּבִפְלוּגְתָּא: עֵדִים שֶׁהוּכְחֲשׁוּ וּלְבַסּוֹף הוּזַּמּוּ – רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, חַד אָמַר: נֶהֱרָגִין, וְחַד אָמַר: אֵין נֶהֱרָגִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** this is a matter **in the dispute** between other *amora’im*, before Rava and Abaye discussed it. As it was stated: With regard to **witnesses** to a capital crime **who were** first **contradicted** by two other witnesses **and ultimately were rendered conspiring witnesses,** this is a matter of dispute between **Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar. One said:** These witnesses **are killed,** like all conspiring witnesses in a capital case, as the contradiction of testimony is the start of determining that testimony is conspiring testimony, **and one said: They are not killed.**


###### Bava Kamma 74b:8
[Bava Kamma 74b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/74b:8)

תִּסְתַּיֵּים דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הוּא דְּאָמַר אֵין נֶהֱרָגִין – דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: עֵדִים שֶׁהוּכְחֲשׁוּ בְּנֶפֶשׁ – לוֹקִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **It may be concluded** that **it is Rabbi Elazar who says they are not killed. As Rabbi Elazar says: Witnesses who were contradicted in** a case involving the taking of **a life,** i.e., a capital case, **are flogged** for violating the prohibition: “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Exodus 20:13).


###### Bava Kamma 74b:9
[Bava Kamma 74b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/74b:9)

וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הוּא דְּאָמַר נֶהֱרָגִין – אַמַּאי לוֹקִין? הָוֵה לֵיהּ לָאו שֶׁנִּיתַּן לְאַזְהָרַת מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין, וְכׇל לָאו שֶׁנִּיתַּן לְאַזְהָרַת מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין – אֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if it enters your mind** that **it is Rabbi Elazar who says** that witnesses to a capital crime who were first contradicted and ultimately found to be conspiring witnesses **are killed, why are they flogged** in this case? There is always the possibility that they might be rendered conspiring witnesses, which would render them liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment. Consequently, this is a case of **a prohibition given as warning** of liability **for court**-imposed **capital punishment, and** there is a principle that **one is not flogged for** violating **any prohibition given as warning** of liability **for court**-imposed **capital punishment.**


###### Bava Kamma 74b:10
[Bava Kamma 74b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/74b:10)

אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הוּא דְּאָמַר אֵין נֶהֱרָגִין? תִּסְתַּיַּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, isn’t it** correct to **conclude from** this statement that **it is Rabbi Elazar who says** that witnesses to a capital crime who were first contradicted and ultimately were found to be conspiring witnesses **are not killed?** The Gemara affirms: **It may be concluded** that this is so.


###### Bava Kamma 74b:11
[Bava Kamma 74b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/74b:11)

לוֹקִין?! תְּרֵי וּתְרֵי נִינְהוּ, מַאי חָזֵית דְּסָמְכַתְּ אַהָנֵי? סְמוֹךְ אַהָנֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks a question with regard to Rabbi Elazar’s opinion that witnesses who were contradicted in a capital case are flogged. Why **are** they **flogged** simply because their testimony was contradicted? **They are two** witnesses, **and** they are contradicted by **two** other witnesses. **What did you see** in the testimony of the second set of witnesses **that** leads **you** to **rely on those** witnesses to the extent that the first set of witnesses is flogged? You could just as well **rely on these** witnesses, i.e., the first witnesses. How can the court ever determine with certainty that a given testimony is false based merely on contradictory testimony?


###### Bava Kamma 74b:12
[Bava Kamma 74b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/74b:12)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בְּבָא הָרוּג בְּרַגְלָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said:** The contradiction to which Rabbi Elazar is referring involves a case **where** the witnesses testified that they saw a certain person murdered, and subsequently the individual who was allegedly **killed came** to the court **on his feet,** conclusively disproving their testimony.


###### Bava Kamma 74b:13
[Bava Kamma 74b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/74b:13)

**מַתְנִי׳** גָּנַב עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם, וְטָבַח וּמָכַר עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד אוֹ עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ – מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל, וְאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If one **stole** an ox or a sheep, as established **based on** the testimony of **two** witnesses, **and he** subsequently **slaughtered or sold** the stolen animal, as established **based on** the testimony of **one witness or based on his own** admission, i.e., he himself admitted that he performed these acts, without there being any witness testimony, **he pays** the **double payment, but he does not pay** the **fourfold or fivefold payment.**


###### Bava Kamma 74b:14
[Bava Kamma 74b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/74b:14)

גָּנַב וְטָבַח בַּשַּׁבָּת; גָּנַב וְטָבַח לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה; גָּנַב מִשֶּׁל אָבִיו, וּמֵת אָבִיו, וְאַחַר כָּךְ טָבַח וּמָכַר; גָּנַב וְהִקְדִּישׁ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ טָבַח וּמָכַר – מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל, וְאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If one **stole** an animal **and slaughtered** it **on Shabbat,** which is a capital offense, or if **he stole** an animal **and slaughtered** it **for the** purpose of **idol worship,** or if **he stole his father’s** animal **and** subsequently **his father died, and afterward he slaughtered or sold** it, or if **he stole** an animal **and** subsequently **he consecrated** it as an offering **and afterward he slaughtered or sold** it, in all these cases the thief **pays** the **double payment, but he does not pay** the **fourfold or fivefold payment.**


###### Bava Kamma 74b:15
[Bava Kamma 74b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/74b:15)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: קֳדָשִׁים – שֶׁחַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָם, מְשַׁלֵּם. תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה – שֶׁאֵין חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָם, פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Shimon says:** In the case of **sacrificial** animals **for which** the owner **bears** financial **responsibility** to replace with another animal if one of the original animals that one stole is lost or dies, the thief is obligated to **pay** the **fourfold or fivefold payment** if he slaughters one of the animals. If it is a sacrificial animal **for which** the owner **bears no** financial **responsibility,** the thief **is exempt** from the fourfold or fivefold payment.


###### Bava Kamma 74b:16
[Bava Kamma 74b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/74b:16)

**גְּמָ׳** עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד – פְּשִׁיטָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna teaches that if the fact that the thief slaughtered or sold the animal was established **based on** the testimony of **one witness,** he is exempt from the fourfold or fivefold payment. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this **obvious?**


###### Bava Kamma 74b:17
[Bava Kamma 74b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/74b:17)

אָמְרִי: הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ – דּוּמְיָא דְּעַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד; מָה עַל פִּי [עֵד] אֶחָד – כִּי אָתֵי עֵד אֶחָד מִצְטָרֵף בַּהֲדֵיהּ, מִיחַיַּיב; עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ נָמֵי – כִּי אָתוּ עֵדִים, מִיחַיַּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **say** in response: By stating this case, the mishna **teaches us this** *halakha*: The case of the thief slaughtering the animal established **based on** the testimony of **one witness is similar to** a case where it is established **based on his own** admission. **Just as** in the case where the slaughter is established **based on** the testimony of **one witness, if one** other **witness comes** and corroborates the testimony of the first, he **joins together with** the first witness and together their testimony is rendered a valid testimony of two, and the thief **becomes obligated** to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment, **so too,** where the slaughter is established **based on his own** admission, **if witnesses come** after his admission he **becomes obligated** to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment.


###### Bava Kamma 74b:18
[Bava Kamma 74b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/74b:18)

לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב – דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: מוֹדֶה בִּקְנָס, וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּאוּ עֵדִים – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: This interpretation of the mishna serves **to exclude** that **which Rav Huna** says that **Rav says. As Rav Huna says** that **Rav says:** One who **admits** he is liable **to** pay **a fine is exempt** from payment, even if **afterward witnesses come** and testify to his liability.


###### Bava Kamma 74b:19
[Bava Kamma 74b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/74b:19)

גּוּפָא – אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: מוֹדֶה בִּקְנָס, וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּאוּ עֵדִים – פָּטוּר. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב חִסְדָּא לְרַב הוּנָא: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל שֶׁסִּימֵּא אֶת עֵין טָבִי עַבְדּוֹ, וְהָיָה שָׂמֵחַ שִׂמְחָה גְּדוֹלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Since Rav Huna’s *halakha* was mentioned, the Gemara discusses in detail **the** matter **itself. Rav Huna says** that **Rav says:** One who **admits** he is liable **to** pay **a fine is exempt** from payment, even if **afterward witnesses come** and testify to his liability. **Rav Ḥisda raised an objection to Rav Huna** from a *baraita*: There was **an incident involving Rabban Gamliel, who blinded the eye of his** Canaanite **slave Tavi, and he experienced great joy** as a result. Rabban Gamliel had long wanted to emancipate Tavi, but it is generally prohibited to emancipate a Canaanite slave. The injury provided a fortuitous opportunity for Rabban Gamliel to emancipate his slave, as blinding the eye of one’s slave results in his emancipation (see Exodus 21:27).


###### Bava Kamma 74b:20
[Bava Kamma 74b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/74b:20)

מְצָאוֹ לְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, אָמַר לוֹ: ״אִי אַתָּה יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁטָּבִי עַבְדִּי יָצָא לְחֵירוּת?״ אָמַר לוֹ: ״לָמָּה?״ אָמַר לוֹ: ״שֶׁסִּמִּיתִי אֶת עֵינוֹ״. אָמַר לוֹ: ״אֵין בִּדְבָרֶיךָ כְּלוּם, שֶׁכְּבָר אֵין לוֹ עֵדִים״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabban Gamliel **encountered Rabbi Yehoshua** and **said to him: Do you know that my slave Tavi was emancipated?** Rabbi Yehoshua **said to him: Why?** What circumstances enabled you to emancipate him? Rabban Gamliel **said to him:** I was able to do so, **as I blinded his eye.** Rabbi Yehoshua **said to** Rabban Gamliel: **Your statement is nothing,** and is not grounds for his emancipation, **as he has no witnesses** who can testify that you did this to him. The principle is that one does not pay a fine based on his own admission. One pays a fine only based on the testimony of witnesses. The requirement to emancipate one’s slave after injuring his eye is a type of fine.


###### Bava Kamma 74b:21
[Bava Kamma 74b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/74b:21)

הָא יֵשׁ לוֹ עֵדִים – חַיָּיב, וְשָׁמְעִינַן מִינַּהּ: מוֹדֶה בִּקְנָס, וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּאוּ עֵדִים – חַיָּיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara infers from the *baraita*: **But** if Tavi **had witnesses** who could testify with regard to the injury, Rabban Gamliel would be **obligated** to emancipate him, even if they testify after Rabban Gamliel’s admission. **And we** can **learn from** this that one who **admits** that he is liable **to** pay **a fine is liable,** even if **afterward witnesses come** and testify with regard to his liability.


###### Bava Kamma 74b:22
[Bava Kamma 74b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/74b:22)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שָׁאנֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, דְּלָא בִּפְנֵי בֵּית דִּין אוֹדִי. וְהָא רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אַב בֵּית דִּין הֲוָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Huna **said to** Rav Ḥisda: This case involving **Rabban Gamliel is different, as he admitted** to his actions when he was **not in the presence of a court.** An admission not in the presence of a court does not exempt the perpetrator from paying the relevant fine. The Gemara challenges: **But Rabbi Yehoshua was the president of the court,** so it is likely that the encounter took place in court.