Study Bava Kamma folio 75B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
אלא לאו הא קא משמע לן: גנב על פי שנים וטבח על פי עד אחד או על פי עצמו – הוא דלא מחייב עצמו בקרן,
Rather, is it not correct to say that by citing the more complicated case, this is what the Mishnah 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.
הוא דאמרינן על פי עצמו דומיא דעל פי עד אחד; מה על פי עד אחד – כי אתי עד אחד מצטרף בהדיה, מחייב; על פי עצמו נמי – כי אתו עדים, מחייב.
The Talmud 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.
אבל גנב וטבח ומכר על פי עד אחד או על פי עצמו – דחייב עצמו בקרן, לא אמרינן על פי עצמו דומיא דעל פי עד אחד.
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.