What’s the beef? TB Baba Kama 71-72

If a thief admits his guilt before he goes to trial, the penalty he would have been obligated to pay is absolved. The thief only has to replace the stolen object or its value. At the very bottom of daf TB Baba Kama 71b to the very top of 72a the Gemara wonders is there a case when a person could be obligated only to pay half of the penalty or would the entire fine absolved?

The Gemara presents two different scenarios.

1.                    “Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Naḥman: If one stole an ox belonging to             two partners and slaughtered it, and subsequently admitted the theft to one of             the partners, which means that he is exempt from paying the fourfold or fivefold             payment to that partner, in accordance with the principle that one who admits his             own guilt is exempt from fines, what is the halakha with regard to payment to the         other partner

 “             The Gemara explains the sides of the dilemma: The Merciful One states in the               Torah: “He shall pay five oxen for an ox” (Exodus 21:37), which indicates five             full oxen, but not five half-oxen. Or perhaps when the Merciful One states                 “five oxen,” this means that even five half-oxen must be paid in a case of this                 kind. Rav Naḥman said to Rava: The Merciful One states: “Five oxen,” which             means five full oxen, but not five half-oxen.” (Sefaria.org translation)

            “Rava raised an objection to him from the mishna: If one stole an animal of his             father’s and then slaughtered or sold it, and afterward his father died, he pays         the fourfold or fivefold payment. But here, since his father died and the thief has         inherited part of the stolen animal himself, it is similar to the case of one who stole         from two partners and went ahead and admitted the theft to one of them, i.e., to             himself. In the case of the mishna he is exempt from paying the portion of the fine         that is for himself, and yet the mishna teaches that he pays the other heirs their                 portion of the fourfold or fivefold payment.

“Rav Naḥman said to Rava: With what are we dealing here? With a case where his father stood against his son the thief in his trial, and the son was convicted for the theft and slaughter of his father’s animal. In this case, the liability to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment was established before the father’s death, and at that time the payment was five full oxen.

“Rava asked him: And if the thief had not yet stood trial before the father’s death, what would be the halakha, according to your opinion? Would he not be required to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment? If so, rather than teaching in the latter clause of the mishna (74b): If one stole his father’s animal and the father died, and afterward he slaughtered or sold it, he does not pay the fourfold or fivefold payment; let the mishna make a distinction within the same type of case, as follows: In what case is this statement, i.e., that the thief is required to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment, said? It is when the thief stood trial in his father’s lifetime; but if he did not stand trial in his father’s lifetime he does not pay the fourfold or fivefold payment.

 

“Rav Naḥman said to him: Indeed, the mishna could have mentioned that case. However, since the tanna of the mishna has to cite the first clause, which discusses one who stole an animal of his father’s and slaughtered or sold it, and afterward his father died, he cites the latter clause as well, by means of a similar case: If one stole his father’s animal and his father died, and afterward he slaughtered or sold the animal.” (Sefaria.org translation)

 

Although the second case looks complicated, it’s not so bad. The thief is not only a thief, he’s also an heir along with his other siblings. Now this case is analogous of a thief who confessed to one of the partners he stole the object from. Something interesting happened the next morning. Rav Naḥman reversed his decision. “On the following morning, Rav Naḥman retracted his statement and said to Rava: The Merciful One states: “Five oxen,” and this means that even five half-oxen are included. Rav Naḥman explained his change of mind: And the reason that I did not say this to you last night is because I had not eaten ox meat.  (דְּלָא אֲכַלִי בִּשְׂרָא דְתוֹרָא.)”

What exactly did Rav Naḥman mean when he said I had not eaten ox meat? Rashi an Raavad explain that this is an idiomatic expression meaning that Rav Naḥman did not investigate the matter well enough. Tosafot ד"ה דְּלָא אֲכַלִי בִּשְׂרָא דְתוֹרָא. interprets this phrase to mean that Rav Naḥman was protein deficient because he was fasting the day before and couldn’t think straight. I know when am hungry I have a hard time focusing too.