## Bava Kamma Daf 75b

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

אֶלָּא לָאו הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: גָּנַב עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם וְטָבַח עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד אוֹ עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ – הוּא דְּלָא מְחַיֵּיב עַצְמוֹ בְּקֶרֶן,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, is it not** correct to say that by citing the more complicated case, **this** is what the mishna **teaches us: It is** only in this case, where it is established that the thief **stole** an animal **based on** the testimony of **two** witnesses, **and** it is established that **he slaughtered** or sold it **based on** the testimony of **one witness or based on his own** admission, and **where he does not obligate himself** through his admission **to** pay **the principal,** that he is obligated to pay the fine.


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

הוּא דְּאָמְרִינַן עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ דּוּמְיָא דְּעַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד; מָה עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד – כִּי אָתֵי עֵד אֶחָד מִצְטָרֵף בַּהֲדֵיהּ, מִחַיַּיב; עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ נָמֵי – כִּי אָתוּ עֵדִים, מִחַיַּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: In other words, it is only in **that** case, where the theft is established based on the testimony of two witnesses, **that we say** that liability **based on his own** admission **is similar to the** testimony **of one witness,** in that **just as when** the slaughter is established **based on** the testimony of **one witness,** if **one** other **witness** later **comes he joins together with** the first witness and together their testimony is rendered a valid testimony of two witnesses and the thief **becomes liable** to pay, so **too,** in a case when the slaughter is established **based on his own** admission, **if witnesses** subsequently **come** and testify, he **becomes liable** to pay the fine, as his admission would not have rendered him liable to pay any payment.


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

אֲבָל גָּנַב וְטָבַח וּמָכַר עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד אוֹ עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ – דְּחִיֵּיב עַצְמוֹ בְּקֶרֶן, לָא אָמְרִינַן עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ דֻּומְיָא דְּעַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** if it is established that the thief **stole** an animal **and slaughtered or sold** it, all **based on** the testimony of **one witness or based on his own** admission, in **which** case through his admission **he obligates himself to** pay **the principal** amount, **we do not say** that when witnesses testify subsequent **to his own** admission it is **similar** to when they arrive subsequent **to the** testimony **of one witness,** and he is liable to pay the fine in both cases. Rather, since in this case his admission would have rendered him liable to pay the principal due to the fact that the theft was not established based on the testimony of two witnesses, it is considered a proper admission, which exempts him from paying the fine.


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

בָּרַיְיתָא – דְּתַנְיָא: רָאָה עֵדִים שֶׁמְּמַשְׁמְשִׁין וּבָאִין, וְאָמַר: ״גָּנַבְתִּי, אֲבָל לֹא טָבַחְתִּי וְלֹא מָכַרְתִּי״ – אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא קֶרֶן. לְמָה לִי לְמִיתְנֵא: ״וְאָמַר גָּנַבְתִּי אֲבָל לֹא טָבַחְתִּי וְלֹא מָכַרְתִּי״? נִיתְנֵי: ״אוֹ גָּנַבְתִּי אוֹ טָבַחְתִּי וּמָכַרְתִּי״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The ***baraita*** that supports Rav Hamnuna’s opinion is the one cited earlier, **as it is taught:** 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. Why do I** need the *baraita* **to teach: And** the thief **said:** I admit that **I stole** an animal **but I did not slaughter or sell** it? **Let it teach** a simpler case, in which the thief said **either: I stole** the animal, **or: I slaughtered** it, **or: I sold** it.


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

אֶלָּא הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: טַעְמָא דְּאָמַר ״גָּנַבְתִּי״ הוּא דְּחִיֵּיב עַצְמוֹ בְּקֶרֶן – דְּפָטוּר; אֲבָל אָמַר ״לֹא גָּנַבְתִּי״ וּבָאוּ עֵדִים שֶׁגָּנַב, וְחָזַר וְאָמַר ״טָבַחְתִּי וּמָכַרְתִּי״ וּבָאוּ עֵדִים שֶׁטָּבַח וּמָכַר, דְּלֹא חִיֵּיב עַצְמוֹ בְּקֶרֶן – חַיָּיב. אַלְמָא הוֹדָאָה דִּטְבִיחָה לָאו הוֹדָאָה הִיא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** by choosing the more complicated case, **this** is what the *baraita* **teaches us: The** only **reason that** the thief **is exempt** from payment **is that he says: I stole** the animal, **as** in that case **he obligated himself to** pay **the principal. But** if **he says: I did not steal, and witnesses came** and testified **that he did steal** an animal, **and subsequently he** changed his claim and **says: I slaughtered** it, **or: I sold** it, **and** then **witnesses came** and confirmed **that he slaughtered or sold** it, in which case the thief **did not obligate himself to pay the principal** or any other payment, he would be **liable** to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment. **Apparently, an admission to** the **slaughter** of a stolen animal **is not** considered a valid **admission,** as such an admission does not obligate the perpetrator to pay a fine.


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

אָמְרִי: לָא, הִיא גּוּפַהּ קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – דְּכֵיוָן דְּאָמַר: ״גָּנַבְתִּי״; אַף עַל גַּב דְּאָמַר ״לֹא טָבַחְתִּי וְלֹא מָכַרְתִּי״, וּבָאוּ עֵדִים שֶׁטָּבַח וּמָכַר – פָּטוּר. מַאי טַעְמָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **says,** in rejection of this second proof: **No,** it is possible to explain the reason the *tanna* of the *baraita* chose to present this case in a different manner, as it **teaches us this** *halakha* **itself: That once** the thief **says: I stole** the animal, **even if he** also **says: I did not slaughter or sell** it, **and** later **witnesses came** and testified **that he slaughtered or sold it,** he is **exempt** from paying the fourfold or fivefold payment. **What is the reason** for this exemption?


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

תַּשְׁלוּמֵי (אַרְבַּע) חֲמִשָּׁה אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלֹא תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וְלֹא תַּשְׁלוּמֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The reason is that **the Merciful One states** in the Torah that there is **a payment of four** sheep for a sheep and **five** oxen for an ox (see Exodus 21:37). This indicates that a thief can be rendered liable to pay, respectively, a fourfold or fivefold payment, **but not a fourfold payment** for an ox, **nor a threefold payment** for a sheep. In other words, one should not view the fines as independent of each other, that if the thief is found with the animal he pays as a fine the double payment, and if he slaughtered or sold it he pays a different fine, i.e., the fourfold or fivefold payment. Rather, the fourfold or fivefold payment comprises the principal, the double payment, and an additional two or three times the principal. By admitting to his act of theft, the thief exempts himself from the double payment, and the remaining fine for slaughtering a sheep would be a threefold payment, or a fourfold payment for an ox, which are not mandated by the Torah.


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

לֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי – הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם מְעִידִין שֶׁגָּנַב, וְהָיוּ שְׁנַיִם מְעִידִים אוֹתוֹ שֶׁטָּבַח וּמָכַר; הוּזַּמּוּ עֵדֵי גְנֵיבָה – עֵדוּת שֶׁבָּטְלָה מִקְצָתָהּ בָּטְלָה כּוּלָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara proposes: **Let us say** that the opinion of Rav Hamnuna and Rabbi Yoḥanan is the **subject of** a dispute between ***tanna’im*.** As it is taught in a *baraita*: If **two** witnesses **testify that** someone **stole** an animal, **and two** others **testify** against **him that he slaughtered or sold** the animal, and the **witnesses** who had testified concerning the **theft were rendered conspiring witnesses,** the thief is exempt from all payment, as **testimony that was partially invalidated is entirely invalidated.** If the testimony concerning the theft was undermined, the testimony concerning the slaughter or sale is thereby rendered irrelevant. Consequently, the alleged thief is exempt from any payment.


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

הוּזַּמּוּ עֵדֵי טְבִיחָה – הוּא מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל, וְהֵן מְשַׁלְּמִין תַּשְׁלוּמֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה. מִשּׁוּם סוֹמְכוֹס אָמְרוּ: הֵן מְשַׁלְּמִין תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל, וְהוּא מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה לַפָּר וּשְׁנַיִם לָאַיִל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **the witnesses** who testified concerning **the slaughter** or sale **were rendered conspiring witnesses,** but the testimony concerning the theft remains credible, the thief **pays** the **double payment, and** the conspiring witnesses **pay a threefold payment,** as that is the loss they sought to impose on the thief. The Sages **said in the name of Sumakhos:** The witnesses **pay** the **double payment, and** the thief **pays a threefold payment for an ox and a twofold** payment **for a ram.** This concludes the *baraita*.


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

אַהֵיָיא קָאֵי סוֹמְכוֹס? אִילֵּימָא אַרֵישָׁא – לֵית לֵיהּ לְסוֹמְכוֹס עֵדוּת שֶׁבָּטְלָה מִקְצָתָהּ בָּטְלָה כּוּלָּהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes the statement of Sumakhos: **To which** clause in the *baraita* **is Sumakhos referring? If we say** that he is referring **to the first clause,** in which the testimony concerning the theft is invalidated, this is impossible. **Doesn’t Sumakhos** accept the principle that **testimony that was partially invalidated is entirely invalidated,** in this case rendering the testimony concerning the slaughter or sale irrelevant if there is no testimony concerning the theft?


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

וְאֶלָּא אַסֵּיפָא – שַׁפִּיר קָאָמְרִי רַבָּנַן: הוּא מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל, וְהֵם מְשַׁלְּמִין תַּשְׁלוּמֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But rather,** he must be referring **to the latter clause** of the *baraita*, in which the testimony concerning the slaughter or sale is invalidated. This, too, is impossible, as in this case **the Rabbis,** i.e., the first *tanna* of the *baraita*, **say well,** i.e., what they state is reasonable, **and** the thief **pays** the **double payment and** the witnesses **pay a threefold payment.** On what basis would Sumakhos dispute this ruling?


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

אֶלָּא מִילְּתָא אַחֲרִיתִי אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ – כְּגוֹן דְּאָתוּ בֵּי תְרֵי אָמְרִי לֵיהּ ״גָּנַבְתָּ״; אֲמַר לְהוּ: ״אִין, גָּנַבְתִּי וְטָבַחְתִּי וּמָכַרְתִּי, מִיהוּ לֹא בִּפְנֵיכֶם גָּנַבְתִּי״, וְאַיְיתִי סָהֲדִי וְאַזְּמִינְהוּ – דְּלָא בְּאַפַּיְיהוּ גְּנַב; וְאַיְיתִי בַּעַל הַבַּיִת סָהֲדֵי וְאַסְהִידוּ בֵּיהּ דְּגָנַב וְטָבַח וּמָכַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it must be that Sumakhos is referring to a different case entirely, one that is not mentioned explicitly in the *baraita*, and **a different matter is** at the core of the dispute **between them.** Sumakhos is referring to a case **where two** people **come** and **say to** the thief: **You stole** an animal. The thief **said to them** in reply: **Yes, I did steal** the animal, **and** moreover, **I slaughtered** it, **or: I sold** it. **But I did not steal** it **in your presence,** and your testimony that you saw me steal it is false. **And** subsequently the thief **brought** new **witnesses who rendered** the original witnesses **conspiring witnesses,** by testifying that they were in a different place at the time they claimed that the theft occurred, thereby proving **that** the thief **did not steal in their presence. And** finally, **the owner** of the animal **brought** other **witnesses who testified that** the thief **stole** the animal **and slaughtered or sold** it.


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

וּבְהוֹדָאַת טְבִיחָה קָמִיפַּלְגִי –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** Sumakhos and the Rabbis **disagree over** whether **an admission to** the **slaughter** of a stolen animal is a valid admission, even though it does not lead to liability to pay any payment. Both parties to the dispute agree that the admission of a perpetrator only in response to the testimony of witnesses is not a valid admission.


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

דְּרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: אַף עַל גַּב דְּהוֹדָאָה דִגְנֵיבָה מֵחֲמַת עֵדִים הוּא דְּקָא מוֹדֵה, הוֹדָאָה דִטְבִיחָה הוֹדָאָה הִיא, וּפָטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The dispute between them is **that the Rabbis maintain that even though** the thief’s **admission concerning** the **theft** itself is not a valid admission because it is **due** only **to the witnesses** who have testified against him that **he admits** his guilt, nevertheless, his **admission concerning** the **slaughter** of the animal **is** a valid **admission,** despite the fact it does not render the thief liable to pay a fine, **and** he is therefore **exempt** from the fourfold or fivefold payment. The conspiring witnesses must pay the double payment to the thief, since this is the amount of financial damage they sought to impose on him, while the thief pays the double payment to the owner, as valid witnesses ultimately testified that he stole the animal.


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

וְסוֹמְכוֹס סָבַר: כֵּיוָן דְּהוֹדָאָה דִּגְנֵיבָה מֵחֲמַת עֵדִים הוּא דְּקָא מוֹדֵה, דִּטְבִיחָה לָאו הוֹדָאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Sumakhos maintains** that **since** the **admission concerning** the **theft** itself is not a valid admission because it was **due** only **to** the testimony of the **witnesses that he admits** his guilt, so too, the admission **concerning** the **slaughter is not** a valid **admission,** because it does not obligate him to pay a fine, as stated by Rav Hamnuna and Rabbi Yoḥanan.


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

וְהָנָךְ עֵדִים קַמָּאֵי דְּאַזְּמִינְהוּ – מְשַׁלְּמִין תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל; וְהוּא מְשַׁלֵּם שְׁלֹשָׁה לַפָּר וּשְׁנַיִם לָאַיִל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** consequently, **those first witnesses** to the theft, **who were rendered conspiring witnesses, pay** the **double payment,** as that is the amount of financial damage they sought to impose on him, **and** the thief **pays** the double payment to the owner of the animal, as valid witnesses ultimately testified that he stole it, and since his admission is invalid he must pay an additional **threefold** payment, for a total of a fivefold payment **for an ox, or a twofold** payment, for a total of a fourfold payment, **for a ram.** If this is their dispute, Sumakhos is in agreement with the opinion of Rav Hamnuna and Rabbi Yoḥanan, while the Rabbis disagree with this opinion.


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

אָמַר רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא: לָא; דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא – הוֹדָאָה דִטְבִיחָה לָאו הוֹדָאָה הִיא;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said: No;** it is possible to explain the *baraita* differently, as follows: **Everyone,** i.e., both Sumakhos and the Rabbis, maintains that **an admission concerning** the **slaughter** of a stolen animal **is not** a valid **admission,** as it does not render the perpetrator liable to pay any payment.


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

אֶלָּא בְּעֵדוּת שֶׁאִי אַתָּה יָכוֹל לַהֲזִימָּהּ קָמִיפַּלְגִי – כְּגוֹן דְּאָתוּ סָהֲדֵי וְאָמְרִי לֵיהּ: ״גָּנַבְתָּ״, וְאָמַר לְהוּ: ״גָּנַבְתִּי וְטָבַחְתִּי וּמָכַרְתִּי, מִיהוּ לֹא בִּפְנֵיכֶם גָּנַבְתִּי אֶלָּא בִּפְנֵי פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי״; וְאַיְיתִי סָהֲדִי וְאַזְּמִינְהוּ – דְּלָא בְּאַפַּיְיהוּ גְּנַב; וַאֲתוֹ פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי וְאַסְהִידוּ בֵּיהּ דְּגָנַב וְטָבַח וּמָכַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, they disagree over** the concept of **testimony that you cannot render conspiratory** testimony. Sumakhos and the Rabbis disagree with regard to a case **where witnesses come and say to** the thief: **You stole** an animal. **And** the thief **said to them** in response: **I did steal** an animal, **and** moreover, **I slaughtered** it, **or: I sold** it. **But** you are false witnesses, as **it was not in your presence that I stole** the animal, **but in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so. And** the thief subsequently **brought witnesses who established** the first set of witnesses **as conspiring witnesses** by testifying that the thief **did not steal** the animal **in their presence. And** finally, **so-and-so and so-and-so,** the two people mentioned by the thief, **came and testified against** the thief, saying that **he stole** the animal **and** also **slaughtered or sold** it.


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

וּבְהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי – דְּרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי הָוְיָא לַהּ עֵדוּת שֶׁאִי אַתָּה יָכוֹל לַהֲזִימָּהּ, וְכׇל עֵדוּת שֶׁאִי אַתָּה יָכוֹל לַהֲזִימָּהּ – לָא הָוְיָא עֵדוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** it is **with regard to this** point that **they disagree, that the Rabbis maintain** that the testimony of so-and-so and so-and-so is **testimony that you cannot render conspiratory** testimony, as the thief himself admits that their testimony is true. **And any testimony that you cannot render conspiratory** testimony **is not** considered valid **testimony.** Their testimony is therefore discounted, which leaves only the thief’s statement. The thief pays the money he admitted he owes, i.e., the principal of the theft, but he is exempt from paying a fine. Meanwhile, the first witnesses, who had been rendered conspiring witnesses, pay the thief the double payment.


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

וְסוֹמְכוֹס סָבַר: עֵדוּת שֶׁאִי אַתָּה יָכוֹל לַהֲזִימָּהּ – הָוְיָא עֵדוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Sumakhos maintains** that **testimony that you cannot render conspiratory** testimony **is** nevertheless considered valid **testimony.** Therefore, the testimony of so-and-so and so-and-so is valid, and the thief must pay the fourfold or fivefold payment. Sumakhos states that the thief pays a threefold payment for an ox and a twofold payment for a ram. The reason is that the thief receives a double payment from the first, conspiring witnesses, which he gives to the owner of the animal, along with the remainder of the payment. This amounts to a threefold payment for an ox and twofold payment for a ram that he is required to pay from his own funds.


###### Bava Kamma 75b:21
[Bava Kamma 75b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/75b:21)

וְהָא קַיְימָא לַן דְּעֵדוּת שֶׁאִי אַתָּה יָכוֹל לַהֲזִימָּהּ לָא הָוְיָא עֵדוּת! הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּלָא יָדְעִי בְּאֵיזֶה יוֹם בְּאֵיזֶה שָׁעָה – דְּלֵיכָּא לְעֵדוּת כְּלָל; אֲבָל הָכָא – סַיּוֹעֵי הוּא דְּקָא מְסַיְּיעִי לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But do we not maintain** as an accepted principle **that testimony that you cannot render conspiratory** testimony **is not** valid **testimony?** It is not reasonable to suggest that Sumakhos would disagree with that principle. The Gemara answers: **This** statement **applies** in a case **where** witnesses say **that they do not know on which day** or **at which time** of day the events in question occurred, in which case no one could ever say to them: You were in a different place at that time, thereby rendering them conspiring witnesses. With regard to such a case one can say **that** in effect **there is no testimony at all,** as the vague statement of the witnesses does not allow them to be prosecuted as conspiring witnesses. **But here** the thief is **supporting** their testimony, which renders it more credible.


###### Bava Kamma 75b:22
[Bava Kamma 75b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/75b:22)

אָמַר מָר: הֵן מְשַׁלְּמִין תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל. מִדְּקָא מוֹדֵה דִּגְנַב – קֶרֶן בָּעֵי שַׁלּוֹמֵי?! אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב, תְּנִי:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Master said** in the *baraita* that the Sages stated in the name of Sumakhos: The witnesses **pay** the **double payment.** The Gemara asks: **From** the fact **that the thief admits that he stole** the animal, **he is required to pay the principal** amount regardless of any subsequent testimony provided by witnesses. Why, then, should the conspiring witnesses be required to pay a double payment, which includes the principal amount? **Rabbi Elazar says in the name of Rav: Teach** the *baraita* differently, and instead say that Sumakhos said that the witnesses are liable for