## Bava Kamma Daf 75a

###### Bava Kamma 75a:1
[Bava Kamma 75a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/75a:1)

שֶׁלֹּא בְּבֵית דִּין הֲוָה קָאֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, Rabbi Yehoshua **was not** present **in court** when Rabban Gamliel encountered him.


###### Bava Kamma 75a:2
[Bava Kamma 75a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/75a:2)

וְהָתַנְיָא, אָמַר לוֹ: אֵין בִּדְבָרֶיךָ כְּלוּם, שֶׁכְּבָר הוֹדִיתָ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks a question from a different source: **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that Rabbi Yehoshua **said to** Rabban Gamliel: **Your statement is nothing, as you have already admitted** to inflicting the injury yourself? This indicates that even if witnesses would subsequently testify about the injury, Rabban Gamliel would not emancipate Tavi.


###### Bava Kamma 75a:3
[Bava Kamma 75a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/75a:3)

מַאי, לָאו תַּנָּאֵי הִיא – הַאי תַּנָּא דְּאָמַר ״שֶׁכְּבָר אֵין לְךָ עֵדִים״, סָבַר: מוֹדֶה בִּקְנָס וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּאוּ עֵדִים – חַיָּיב; וְהַאי תַּנָּא דְּאָמַר ״שֶׁכְּבָר הוֹדִיתָ״, סָבַר: מוֹדֶה בִּקְנָס וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּאוּ עֵדִים – פָּטוּר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **What, is it not** the case that the difference between these two *baraitot* **is** a dispute between ***tanna’im*? This *tanna*** of the first *baraita*, **who says** that Rabbi Yehoshua’s statement was: **As you have no witnesses, holds** that one who **admits** that he is liable **to** pay **a fine is liable** to pay the fine if **afterward witnesses come** and testify to his liability. **And that *tanna*** of the second *baraita*, **who says** that Rabbi Yehoshua’s statement was: **As you have already admitted, holds** that one who **admits** that he is liable **to** pay **a fine is exempt** from payment, even if **afterward witnesses come** and testify to his liability.


###### Bava Kamma 75a:4
[Bava Kamma 75a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/75a:4)

לָא; דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא, מוֹדֶה בִּקְנָס וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּאוּ עֵדִים – פָּטוּר; וּבְהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי – הַאי תַּנָּא דְּאָמַר ״שֶׁכְּבָר אֵין לְךָ עֵדִים״, סָבַר: חוּץ לְבֵית דִּין הֲוָה. וְהָךְ תַּנָּא דְּאָמַר ״שֶׁכְּבָר הוֹדִיתָ״, סָבַר: בְּבֵית דִּין הֲוָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: **No;** it is possible to understand the *baraitot* differently. **Everyone agrees** that one who **admits** he is liable **to** pay **a fine is exempt,** even if **afterward witnesses come** and testify to his liability. **And they disagree with regard to** the following: **This *tanna*, who says** that Rabbi Yehoshua said: **As you have no witnesses, holds that** Rabbi Yehoshua **was outside the court** when Rabban Gamliel encountered him, and therefore his admission is disregarded. **And that *tanna*, who says** that Rabbi Yehoshua said: **As you have already admitted, holds** that Rabbi Yehoshua **was in the court** when Rabban Gamliel met him, so Rabban Gamliel’s admission is a valid admission.


###### Bava Kamma 75a:5
[Bava Kamma 75a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/75a:5)

אִיתְּמַר: מוֹדֶה בִּקְנָס, וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּאוּ עֵדִים – רַב אָמַר: פָּטוּר, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes in detail the dispute alluded to above: **It was stated** with regard to one who **admits** that he is liable **to** pay **a fine, and afterward witnesses come** and testify to his liability, that **Rav says** he is **exempt, and Shmuel says** he is **liable.**


###### Bava Kamma 75a:6
[Bava Kamma 75a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/75a:6)

אָמַר רָבָא בַּר אֲהִילַאי: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַב? ״אִם הִמָּצֵא״ – בְּעֵדִים, ״תִמָּצֵא״ – בְּדַיָּינִין; פְּרָט לְמַרְשִׁיעַ אֶת עַצְמוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava bar Ahilai said: What is the reason for** the ruling of **Rav?** With regard to theft, which is subject to a fine of double payment, the Torah states: “If the theft shall be found in his possession alive, whether it is an ox, or a donkey, or a sheep, he shall pay double” (Exodus 22:3). The verb for “shall be found” is doubled, as the verse states “*himmatze timmatze*.” Rav derives from the repetition that there are two matters that are found: The double payment is imposed only **if it is found** [*himmatze*], i.e., it is revealed that he stole the item, **through** the testimony of **witnesses,** and the theft **is found** [*timmatze*], as determined **through judges.** This **excludes one who incriminates himself** through his own admission.


###### Bava Kamma 75a:7
[Bava Kamma 75a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/75a:7)

לְמָה לִי? מֵ״אֲשֶׁר יַרְשִׁיעֻן״ נָפְקָא! אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, מוֹדֶה בִּקְנָס וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּאוּ עֵדִים – פָּטוּר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav asks: But **why do I** need the Torah to teach this here? This principle is already **derived from** a different source: **“The one whom the judges convict** shall pay double to his neighbor” (Exodus 22:8), which indicates that self-incrimination is insufficient to render one liable for double payment. **Rather, conclude from** the fact that there are two verses to serve as the source for this principle that one who **admits** he is liable **to** pay **a fine is exempt** from paying even if **afterward witnesses come** and testify to his liability. The second verse teaches this additional novelty.


###### Bava Kamma 75a:8
[Bava Kamma 75a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/75a:8)

וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר לָךְ: הָהוּא מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְגַנָּב עַצְמוֹ, כִּדְתָנָא דְּבֵי חִזְקִיָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Shmuel** would explain the double expression differently. He could have **said to you: That** verse **is necessary to** teach that **a thief himself** must pay double payment, i.e., the double payment is imposed not only upon a bailee who takes a false oath that the article entrusted to him was stolen, but it is also imposed upon a thief, **as the school of Ḥizkiyya taught** earlier in this chapter (63b).


###### Bava Kamma 75a:9
[Bava Kamma 75a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/75a:9)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב לִשְׁמוּאֵל: רָאָה עֵדִים שֶׁמְּמַשְׁמְשִׁים וּבָאִים, וְאָמַר: ״גָּנַבְתִּי, אֲבָל לֹא טָבַחְתִּי וְלֹא מָכַרְתִּי״ – אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא קֶרֶן! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁחָזְרוּ עֵדִים לַאֲחוֹרֵיהֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav raised an objection to Shmuel** from the following *baraita*: If a thief **saw witnesses who were approaching** with the intent to testify against him, **and** at that point **he said:** I admit that **I stole** an animal, **but I did not slaughter or sell** it, **he pays only the principal.** This indicates that even if those witnesses subsequently testify, the thief remains exempt from the double payment as well as the fourfold or fivefold payment. Shmuel **said to him** in response: **With what are we dealing here** in this *baraita*? With a case **where the witnesses returned back,** i.e., ultimately they did not testify.


###### Bava Kamma 75a:10
[Bava Kamma 75a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/75a:10)

וְהָא מִדְּתָנֵי סֵיפָא, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: יָבוֹאוּ עֵדִים וְיָעִידוּ; מִכְּלָל דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav raised an objection: **But** this interpretation is impossible, as can be seen **from** the fact **that the latter clause** of the *baraita* **teaches: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: Let the witnesses come and testify.** This means that their testimony will be accepted and the thief will be required to pay the relevant fines. **By inference** it may be deduced **that the first *tanna*** holds that **no,** there is no point in the witnesses testifying, as the thief will be exempt in any case.


###### Bava Kamma 75a:11
[Bava Kamma 75a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/75a:11)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל: לָאו אִיכָּא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּקָאֵי כְּווֹתִי? אֲנָא דַּאֲמַרִי – כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Shmuel said to** Rav: **Isn’t there** the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, which stands in accordance with my** opinion? When I said that one who admits that he is liable to pay a fine and afterward witnesses testified that he committed that act is deemed liable, **I said** this ruling **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon.**


###### Bava Kamma 75a:12
[Bava Kamma 75a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/75a:12)

לִשְׁמוּאֵל וַדַּאי תַּנָּאֵי הִיא; לְרַב מִי לֵימָא תַּנָּאֵי הִיא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **According to Shmuel,** his opinion on this matter **is certainly** subject to a dispute between ***tanna’im*,** as he himself was forced to admit that his opinion is in accordance only with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, not that of the first *tanna* of the *baraita*. But **according to Rav, shall we say** that his opinion too **is** necessarily subject to this dispute between ***tanna’im*?**


###### Bava Kamma 75a:13
[Bava Kamma 75a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/75a:13)

אָמַר לְךָ רַב: אֲנָא דַּאֲמַרִי – אֲפִילּוּ לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן; עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הָתָם, אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא מוֹדֵי מֵחֲמַת בִּיעֲתוּתָא דְעֵדִים; אֲבָל הָכָא, דְּמוֹדֶה מֵעַצְמוֹ – אֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מוֹדֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Rav** could have **said to you: I say** my opinion in accordance with the rulings of both *tanna’im* of the *baraita*, **even according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says** that the testimony of the witnesses obligates the thief to pay a fine even after his admission **only there,** in that specific case, **because** the thief **admitted** his guilt solely **due to** his **fear** of the impending testimony **of the witnesses. But here,** in an ordinary case of admission, **where** there is no impending testimony to incriminate him, and **he admits** his guilt **of his own** volition, **even Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,** would **concede** that the thief is exempt from payment even if witnesses subsequently testify that he is liable.


###### Bava Kamma 75a:14
[Bava Kamma 75a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/75a:14)

אָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא: מִסְתַּבְּרָא מִילְּתֵיהּ דְּרַב בְּאוֹמֵר ״גָּנַבְתִּי״, וּבָאוּ עֵדִים שֶׁגָּנַב – פָּטוּר, שֶׁהֲרֵי חִיֵּיב עַצְמוֹ בְּקֶרֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Hamnuna said: Rav’s statement is** more **reasonable** in a case **where** the thief **says: I stole** an item, **and** subsequently **witnesses came** and testified **that he stole** that item. In that case it is logical that the thief is **exempt** from paying the fine despite the witnesses’ testimony, because he at least **obligated himself to** pay **the principal** amount via his admission.


###### Bava Kamma 75a:15
[Bava Kamma 75a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/75a:15)

אֲבָל אָמַר ״לֹא גָּנַבְתִּי״, וּבָאוּ עֵדִים שֶׁגָּנַב, וְחָזַר וְאָמַר ״טָבַחְתִּי וּמָכַרְתִּי״, וּבָאוּ עֵדִים שֶׁטָּבַח וּמָכַר – חַיָּיב, שֶׁהֲרֵי פָּטַר עַצְמוֹ מִכְּלוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** if **he says: I did not steal** anything, **and witnesses came** and testified **that he did steal** an animal, **and subsequently** the thief **says:** Yes, I did steal the animal, and **I** also **slaughtered** it, **or** I also **sold** it, **and witnesses came** and testified **that he slaughtered or sold** it, he is **liable** to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment. The reason he is liable is **that** through his admission he sought to **exempt himself from any** payment whatsoever. In order for an admission to exempt the perpetrator from a fine, it must include an admission that he is liable to pay some payment.


###### Bava Kamma 75a:16
[Bava Kamma 75a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/75a:16)

אָמַר רָבָא: קַפַּחְתִּינְהוּ לְסָבֵי דְּבֵי רַב. דְּהָא רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל פּוֹטֵר עַצְמוֹ מִכְּלוּם הֲוָה, וְקָאָמַר לֵיהּ רַב חִסְדָּא לְרַב הוּנָא – וְלָא קָא מְשַׁנֵּי לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** In this case **I have gotten the better [*kipaḥti*] of the elders of the school of Rav,** which is a reference to Rav Hamnuna. The reason is **that** in the *baraita* that discusses **Rabban Gamliel** injuring his slave, he **was** seeking to **exempt himself from any payment** whatsoever through his admission, **and** yet earlier in the Gemara it was said that **Rav Ḥisda stated** this *baraita* **to Rav Huna** to challenge Rav Huna’s opinion, **and** Rav Huna **did not answer him** that Rabban Gamliel’s case was different because his admission served to exempt him entirely.


###### Bava Kamma 75a:17
[Bava Kamma 75a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/75a:17)

אִיתְּמַר נָמֵי, אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״גָּנַבְתִּי״, וּבָאוּ עֵדִים שֶׁגָּנַב – פָּטוּר, שֶׁהֲרֵי חִיֵּיב עַצְמוֹ בְּקֶרֶן. אֲבָל אָמַר ״לֹא גָּנַבְ[תִּי]״, וּבָאוּ עֵדִים שֶׁגָּנַב, וְחָזַר וְאָמַר ״טָבַחְתִּי וּמָכַרְתִּי״, וּבָאוּ עֵדִים שֶׁטָּבַח וּמָכַר – חַיָּיב, שֶׁהֲרֵי פָּטַר עַצְמוֹ מִכְּלוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **It was also stated** that **Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says** the same opinion as Rav Hamnuna. If a thief says: **I stole** an item, **and witnesses came** and testified **that he stole** that item, the thief is **exempt** from paying the fine despite the witnesses’ testimony, because he at least **obligates himself,** through his admission, **to** pay **the principal. But** if **he says: I did not steal** anything, **and witnesses came** and testified **that he did steal** an animal, **and subsequently** the thief **says:** Yes, I did steal the animal, and **I** also **slaughtered** it, **or** I also **sold** it, and then **witnesses came** and testified **that he slaughtered or sold** it, he is **liable** to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment, **as** through his admission **he was** seeking to **exempt himself from any** payment whatsoever.


###### Bava Kamma 75a:18
[Bava Kamma 75a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/75a:18)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: מַתְנִיתִין וּבָרַיְיתָא נָמֵי דַּיְקָא; מַתְנִיתִין – דִּתְנַן: 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:**
**Rav Ashi said:** There is **a mishna and a *baraita*** that are **also precisely** formulated in accordance with this opinion. **The mishna** is **as we learned** (74b): 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, **he pays** the **double payment, but he does not pay** the **fourfold or fivefold payment.**


###### Bava Kamma 75a:19
[Bava Kamma 75a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/75a:19)

לְמָה לִי דְּתָנֵי גָּנַב עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם? לִיתְנֵי: גָּנַב וְטָבַח [וּמָכַר] עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד אוֹ עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ – אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא הַקֶּרֶן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Why do I** need the mishna to **teach** in the beginning of this case: If one **stole** an ox or a sheep, as established **based on** the testimony of **two** witnesses? **Let** the mishna **teach** the case more simply: If one **stole** an animal **and** then **slaughtered or sold** it, as established **based on** the testimony of **one witness or based on his own** admission, **he pays only the principal.** This would serve to teach the same principle in a less complicated manner, without the need for two additional witnesses.