Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) IF WITNESSES COME AFTER ADMISSION

(a) (Rav): One who admits to a fine, if witnesses later come, he is exempt;
(b) (Shmuel): He is liable.
(c) (Rava bar Ahilai): Rav learns from "If (a thief) will be found" - through witnesses; "He will be found" - by the judges (liable to pay the fine);

1. This excludes one who incriminates himself.
2. Question: We already know this from "That the judges will convict"!
3. Answer: Rather, "If will be found..." exempts one who admits to a fine even if witnesses come later.

(d) Shmuel says that that verse is needed to obligate an actual thief (to pay double), as Tana d'vei Chizkiyah.
(e) Question (Rav - Mishnah): A thief saw witnesses (on his theft) coming to Beis Din. He admitted to the theft but not the slaughter - he only pays principle (even after the witnesses testify!)
(f) Answer #1 (Shmuel): No, the case is, the witnesses never came to Beis Din to testify.
(g) Question (end of the Mishnah - R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon): The witnesses may come and testify.

1. This shows that Chachamim do not accept their testimony!

(h) Answer #2 (Shmuel): I hold as R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon.

1. Shmuel's opinion can only be as R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon.

(i) Question: Is Rav's opinion only as Chachamim?
(j) Answer: No - Rav can say that all agree to his law.

1. Even R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon only allows the witnesses to testify because the admission was on account of the witnesses - he admits, one who freely admits is exempt, even if witnesses come later.

(a) (Rav Hamnuna): Presumably, Rav's law is only when he admitted to stealing before witnesses came, for he obligated himself to pay principle (so he is exempt from the double payment);

1. But if he denied stealing, and witnesses testified that he stole, and then he admitted to slaughtering or selling before witnesses on the slaughter or sale came, he is liable, for his admission did not obligate himself to pay anything!

(b) [Version #1 (Rashi, as cited by Tosfos) - Rava: You pained the Talmidim (by saying something false)!]
(c) [Version #2 (Tosfos) - (Rava): You (Rav Hamnuna) refuted the elder of Rav's Talmidim (Rav Huna)!]

1. When R. Gamliel admitted to blinding Tavi, he did not obligate himself at all;
2. Rav Chisda tried to disprove Rav from that Beraisa - Rav Huna did not answer that R. Gamliel's admission does not exempt him because he did not obligate himself!]

(d) (R. Chiya bar Aba): Reuven admitted to stealing, then 2 witnesses testified that he stole - he is exempt, because he obligated himself to pay principle;

1. But if he denied stealing, and witnesses testified that he stole, and then he admitted to slaughtering or selling, then witnesses testified that he slaughtered or sold, he is liable, for his admission did not obligate himself to pay anything.

(e) (Rav Ashi): Our Mishnah and a Beraisa support this.

1. (Mishnah): Two witnesses testified that Reuven stole, 1 witness testified (or he admitted) that he slaughtered or sold - he pays double, not 4 or 5.
2. Question: Why must it say that 2 witnesses testified that Reuven stole - let it say, 1 witness testified (or he admitted) that he stole and slaughtered or sold, he only pays principle!

3. Answer: The Mishnah teaches that we only equate the law of admitting that he slaughtered or sold to when 1 witness testified to this - (if more witness(es) come later, he will pay (in all) 4 or 5) - only when his admission (to stealing) did not obligate himself;
4. But if 1 witness testified (or he admitted) that he stole and slaughtered or sold, these 2 cases have different laws, if more witness(es) come later;

i. If he did not admit, once there are 2 witnesses, he pays 4 or 5;
ii. In the case when he admitted, his admission obligated him to pay principle, he is exempt from the fine.

(f) (Beraisa): A thief saw witnesses (on his theft) coming to Beis Din. He admitted to the theft but not the slaughter - he only pays principle (even after the witnesses testify!)

1. Question: Why doesn't the Beraisa say, when he admitted to stealing or slaughtering or selling, he does not pay 4 or 5?
2. Answer: Because if he denied stealing, and after witnesses testified that he stole he admitted to slaughtering or selling (and witnesses later testified about this), he pays 4 or 5;

i. Since his admission did not obligate him, it does not exempt him from a fine.

(g) Rejection: No - rather, the Beraisa teaches that admission to stealing exempts him from 4 and 5, even if he denied slaughtering or selling and witnesses testify that he did.
(h) Question: Why is this?
(i) Answer: Admission to stealing exempts him from the double payment; the Torah never obligated paying 3 or 4 (i.e. 4 or 5 less the extra '1' of double payment).
(j) Suggestion: Tana'im argue over this.

1. (Beraisa): Two witnesses testified that Reuven stole, 2 others testified that he slaughtered or sold. The witnesses on the theft were Huzmu - testimony which is partially nullified is totally nullified (Reuven is exempt);
2. If the witnesses on the slaughter or sale were Huzmu - Reuven pays double, the Zomemim witnesses pay 2 or 3;
3. Sumchus says, the Zomemim witnesses pay double, Reuven pays 2 for a Seh or 3 for an ox.
4. Question: Does Sumchus argue on the first or second law?

i. If he argues on the first law - does he argue on the principle that testimony which is partially nullified is totally nullified?!

5. Answer #1: Rather, he argues on the second law.
6. Question: Why does he argue on Chachamim, their law is sound!
7. Answer #2: Rather, they argue in a different case.

i. Two witnesses said 'You stole'; Reuven answered, I stole and slaughtered or sold, but I did not steal in front of you;
ii. Two other witnesses Hezimu the first two. Witnesses then testified that Reuven stole and slaughtered or sold.
iii. Chachamim hold, even though the admission to stealing was because of the witnesses, the admission to slaughtering or selling was voluntary, so it exempts Reuven from 4 or 5;
iv. Sumchus holds, since the admission to stealing was because of the witnesses, also the admission to slaughtering or selling does not exempt Reuven from the fine.
v. Therefore, the Zomemim witnesses pay double, Reuven pays 2 for a Seh or 3 for an ox.

(a) Rejection (Rav Acha brei d'Rav Ika): No - all agree, admission to slaughtering does nothing;

1. They argue regarding testimony which cannot be made Zomem.

i. Two witnesses said 'You stole'; Reuven answered, I stole and slaughtered or sold, but I did not steal in front of you - I stole and slaughtered or sold in front of Ploni and Almoni;
ii. Ploni and Almoni testified that he stole and slaughtered or sold.

2. Chachamim hold, since Ploni and Almoni cannot be Huzmu (for Reuven admitted that they saw him steal and slaughter or sell), their testimony is invalid;
3. Sumchus says, even though they cannot be Huzmu, their testimony is valid.

(b) Question: But we hold, testimony which cannot be made Zomem is invalid!
(c) Answer: That is only when the witnesses do not know at what time they saw the testimony - such testimony is worthless;

1. Here, the defendant supports the testimony!

(d) (Beraisa): The Zomemim witnesses pay double...
(e) Question: Since Reuven admits that he stole, he should pay principle, (they should only pay him 1)!
(f) Correction (R. Elazar): The Beraisa should say, they pay the extra payment (of double payment).