Study Bava Kamma folio 75B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
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 t
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 te
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 h
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
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