Gemara Clarity

Bava Kamma 75b

בבא קמא ע״ה ע״ב

Learn Bava Kamma 75b step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Bava Kamma 75b in Gemara Clarity

Topic

מודה בקנס ואחר כך באו עדים: when a thief's admission exempts him from the fine, and the מחלוקת of סומכוס and the רבנן

Overview

This amud asks whether a thief who admits to an act that carries a fine is freed from that fine, even if witnesses come afterward. First the גמרא reads the משנה closely. An admission that adds no payment of קרן counts only like 'one witness,' but a real admission that makes him owe the קרן exempts him from the fine. Next it brings a ברייתא about a thief who saw witnesses coming and admitted the theft. It tries to prove from its wording that admitting to slaughter is not a real הודאה. That proof is pushed off, because the fine of four or five is one unit, and once the כפל part falls away, the whole fine falls away. Then the גמרא asks whether this question is a מחלוקת between the רבנן and סומכוס in another ברייתא about witnesses proven to be זוממין. One explanation says they argue about whether admitting to slaughter counts. רב אחא בריה דרב איקא says instead that they argue about testimony that cannot be made זוממין, and the גמרא limits the usual rule against such testimony. Finally the גמרא asks why the false witnesses should pay a full כפל, and רבי אלעזר in the name of רב begins to correct the wording of the ברייתא; the corrected wording continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

אֶלָּא לָאו הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן:

Rather, is it not that this is what it teaches us:

גָּנַב עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם

He stole based on two witnesses

וְטָבַח עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד

and slaughtered based on one witness

אוֹ עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ –

or based on his own admission

The steps (29)

  1. ResponseWhat the משנה's detailed case is really teaching
  2. StatementOnly here is an admission treated like one witness
  3. ConclusionWhen the admission does obligate the principal, it exempts him from the fine
  4. ProofThe supporting ברייתא: a thief who admits as witnesses approach
  5. QuestionWhy does the ברייתא use such complicated wording?
  6. ProofThe hidden lesson: admitting to slaughter does not count
  7. RejectionNo: the ברייתא teaches a different point
  8. QuestionWhy is he exempt?
  9. ResponseThe fine is one package: four or five, never three or four
  10. ProofMaybe this is an argument between תנאים
  11. StatementThe second case: the slaughter witnesses are proven false
  12. Statementסומכוס's different ruling
  13. QuestionWhich case is סומכוס talking about?
  14. ChallengeHe can't mean the first case
  15. ChallengeHe can't mean the second case either
  16. Resolutionסומכוס is talking about a different case
  17. ResolutionThey argue about the admission to slaughtering
  18. StatementThe רבנן: the slaughter admission still counts
  19. Statementסומכוס: the slaughter admission does not count
  20. ConclusionSo the false witnesses pay double and the thief pays the extra fine
  21. Rejectionרב אחא rejects the idea that the dispute is about admitting to slaughter
  22. ResolutionThe real dispute is about testimony that cannot be proven false
  23. StatementThe case: the thief names the true witnesses himself
  24. StatementThe רבנן: testimony that can't be proven false does not count
  25. Statementסומכוס: testimony that can't be proven false still counts
  26. ChallengeIsn't testimony that can't be disproved invalid?
  27. ResolutionThe rule only applies when witnesses can't name a time
  28. ChallengeWhy should the witnesses pay double?
  29. Resolutionרב corrects the wording of the ברייתא