Mishnayos Bava Kamma Perek 7 Mishnah 3
Change text layout:
בבא קמא פרק ז׳ משנה ג׳
If one stole an ox or a sheep, as established based on the testimony of two witnesses, and he subsequently slaughtered the animal or sold it, also based on the testimony of the same witnesses, and these witnesses were found to be conspiring witnesses, these witnesses pay everything, i.e., not only the principal amount but also the fourfold or fivefold payment. This is in accordance with the Torah’s decree with regard to conspiring witnesses: “You shall do to him as he had conspired to do to his brother” (Deuteronomy 19:19). Since these witnesses attempted to obligate the alleged thief to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment, they themselves must pay that full amount. With regard to one who stole an ox or a sheep, as established based on the testimony of two witnesses, and he subsequently slaughtered the animal or sold it, based on the testimony of two other witnesses, if both these witnesses and those witnesses were found to be conspiring witnesses, the first set of witnesses, who testified about the theft of the animal, pay the alleged thief the double payment, which is what they had conspired to cause him to pay. And the last set of witnesses, who attested to the slaughter or sale of the animal, pay the alleged thief a twofold payment for a sheep or a threefold payment for an ox, which they had conspired to cause him to pay over and above the double payment. If only the witnesses in the last set were found to be conspiring witnesses, while the testimony about the theft remains intact, the thief pays the double payment to the animal’s owner and the second set of witnesses pay the alleged thief the twofold or threefold payment, the amount over and above the double payment, which is what they had conspired to cause him to pay. If only one individual from the last set of witnesses was found to be a conspiring witness, the second testimony is nullified, as it was not submitted by two valid witnesses, whereas the first testimony remains intact. If one individual from the first set of witnesses is found to be a conspiring witness, the entire testimony concerning the thief is nullified. The reason is that if there is no theft established by reliable testimony there is no liability for slaughtering the animal and there is no liability for selling it.
גָּנַב עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם וְטָבַח וּמָכַר עַל פִּיהֶם, וְנִמְצְאוּ זוֹמְמִין, מְשַׁלְּמִין הַכֹּל. גָּנַב עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם וְטָבַח וּמָכַר עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם אֲחֵרִים, אֵלּוּ וְאֵלּוּ נִמְצְאוּ זוֹמְמִין, הָרִאשׁוֹנִים מְשַׁלְּמִים תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל, וְהָאַחֲרוֹנִים מְשַׁלְּמִין תַּשְׁלוּמֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה. נִמְצְאוּ אַחֲרוֹנִים זוֹמְמִין, הוּא מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל, וְהֵן מְשַׁלְּמִין תַּשְׁלוּמֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה. אֶחָד מִן הָאַחֲרוֹנִים זוֹמֵם, בָּטְלָה עֵדוּת שְׁנִיָּה. אֶחָד מִן הָרִאשׁוֹנִים זוֹמֵם, בָּטְלָה כָּל הָעֵדוּת, שֶׁאִם אֵין גְּנֵיבָה אֵין טְבִיחָה וְאֵין מְכִירָה:
Bartenura
האחרונים משלמים שלשה. לשור. וכגון שהוזמו אחרונים תחלה. דאי עידי גניבה הוזמו תחלה, בטלה לה עדות טביחה, דדילמא בעלים מכרוהו לו, וכי מתזמי אמאי משלמי:
בטלה עדות שניה. והוא משלם כפל משום עדות ראשונים. והן פטורין, דאין עדים משלמין ממון עד שיזומו שניהם:
בטלה כל העדות. והוא פטור והם פטורים. ואפילו חזרו והוזמו אחרונים אח״כ, אין משלמין, שהרי בטלה עדותן כבר והוכחשו, כיון דלא גנב לא טבח, ואהכי לא מחייבו אלא אעמנו הייתם שהוסרה גופה של עדות. וכל שכן אם הוזמו שנים הראשונים תחלה, שעדות שניה בטלה. אלא שבזמן שלא הוזמו אלא אחד, בטלו שניהם. אבל כשהוזמו שניהם, לא בטלה עדות ראשונה אלא משלמין כפל:
האחרונים משלמים שלשה – for an ox, and for example, the latter witnesses were found to be scheming witnesses first ,for if the witnesses for the theft had been found to be scheming first, the testimony of the slaughter is voided , for perhaps the owners had sold it to him, and if they are refuted why do they pay?
בטלה עדות שניה – and he pays double because of the first testimony (i.e., that he is a thief), and they are exempt, for the witnesses do not pay money until both sets are found to be scheming witnesses.
בטלה כל העדות – and he is exempt and they are exempt [from payment] and even if they retracted and the latter witnesses were found to be scheming afterwards, they do not pay as their testimony was voided already and they were contradicted. Since he did not steal, he did not slaughter [in the meanwhile] they are not liable. But regarding “you were with us” that the whole body of their testimony was removed and all the more so, if the first wo witnesses were found to be scheming witnesses, the testimony of the second [set of witnesses] is voided. But at the time that they had not been found to be scheming other than one [of them], the testimony of both is voided but when both of them had been proven to be scheming witnesses, the testimony of the first set, other than paying of double indemnity.