Answer #2: He was not in Beis Din at the time.

Question (Beraisa #2): Your words have no effect, for you already admitted.

Suggestion: Tana'im argue about Rav Huna's law.

Beraisa #1 said 'your words have no effect, for you have no witnesses'. It holds that witnesses obligate a fine even after admission;

Beraisa #2 said 'your words have no effect, for you already admitted.' It holds that witnesses do not obligate a fine after admission.

Answer: No, all agree that he is exempt after admission;

Beraisa #1 holds that the admission was not in Beis Din (so witnesses would help later). Beraisa #2 holds that the admission was in Beis Din.

(Rav): If one admitted to a fine, and witnesses came later, he is exempt;

(Shmuel): He is liable.

(Rava bar Ahilai): Rav learns from "if (a thief) will be found" - through witnesses. "He will be found" - through the judges (liable to pay the fine);

This excludes one who incriminates himself.

Question: We already know this from "whom the judges will convict"!

Answer: Rather, the first verse exempts one who admits to a fine even if witnesses come later.

Shmuel uses that verse to obligate an actual thief (to pay Kefel for anything), like Tana d'Vei Chizkiyah (64a).

Question (Rav - Mishnah): If a thief saw witnesses (about his theft) coming to Beis Din, and admitted to the theft but not the slaughter, he pays only principal (even after the witnesses testify)!

Answer #1 (Shmuel): No. The case is, the witnesses never came to Beis Din to testify.

Question (Reisha - R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon): The witnesses may come and testify.

This shows that Chachamim do not accept their testimony!

Answer #2 (Shmuel): I hold like R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon.

Question: Shmuel's opinion can only be like R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon; 1. Is Rav's opinion only like Chachamim?

Answer: No. Rav can say that all agree to his law;

Even R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon allows the witnesses to testify only because the admission was due to the witnesses. He agrees that one who freely admits is exempt, even if witnesses come later.

(Rav Hamnuna): Presumably, Rav's law is only when he admitted to stealing before witnesses came, for he obligated himself to pay principal (so he is exempt from Kefel);

But if he denied stealing, and witnesses testified that he stole, and then he admitted to slaughtering or selling before witnesses about the slaughter or sale came, he is liable, for his admission did not obligate himself to pay anything!

Version #1 (Rashi, according to Tosfos) - Rava: You pained the Talmidim (by saying something false)!

Version #2 (Tosfos) - Rava: You (Rav Hamnuna) surpassed the elder of Rav's Talmidim (Rav Huna)!

When R. Gamliel admitted to blinding Tavi, he did not obligate himself at all;

Rav Chisda tried to disprove Rav from that Beraisa. Rav Huna did not (know to give your) answer that R. Gamliel's admission did not exempt him because he did not obligate himself! (end of Version #2)

(R. Chiya bar Aba): If Reuven admitted to stealing, then two witnesses testified that he stole, he is exempt, because he obligated himself to pay principal;

But if he denied stealing, and witnesses testified that he stole, and then he admitted to slaughtering or selling, then witnesses testified that he slaughtered or sold, he is liable, for his admission did not obligate himself to pay anything.

(Rav Ashi): Our Mishnah and a Beraisa support this.

(Mishnah): If two witnesses testified that Reuven stole, and one witness testified or he admitted that he slaughtered or sold, he pays Kefel, but not four or five.

Question: Why must it say that two witnesses testified that Reuven stole? Let it say that if one witness testified, or he admitted that he stole and slaughtered or sold, he only pays principal!

Answer: The Mishnah teaches that we equate admission to slaughtering or selling and testimony of one witness (if more witness(es) come later, he will pay a total of four or five) only when his admission did not obligate himself;

However, if one witness testified that he stole and slaughtered or sold, this is unlike admission to this, if more witness(es) come later;

If he did not admit, once there are two witnesses, he pays four or five;

When he admitted and his admission obligated him to pay principal, he is exempt from the fine.

(Beraisa): If a thief saw witnesses (about his theft) coming to Beis Din, and he admitted to the theft but not to the slaughter, he only pays principal (even after the witnesses testify).

Question: Why doesn't the Beraisa say that when he admitted to stealing or slaughtering or selling, he does not pay four or five?

Answer: If he denied stealing, and after witnesses testified that he stole he admitted to slaughtering or selling (and witnesses later testified about this), he pays four or five;

Since his admission did not obligate him, it does not exempt him from a fine.

Rejection: No. Rather, the Beraisa teaches that admission to stealing exempts him from four and five, even if he denied slaughtering or selling and witnesses testify that he did.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: Admission to stealing exempts him from Kefel. The Torah never obligated paying three or four (i.e. four or five less the extra 'one' of Kefel).

Suggestion: Tana'im argue about this.

(Beraisa): If two witnesses testified that Reuven stole, and two others testified that he slaughtered or sold, and the witnesses about the theft were Huzmu, testimony that is partially nullified is totally nullified (Reuven is exempt);

If the witnesses about the slaughter or sale were Huzmu, Reuven pays Kefel, and the Edim Zomemim pay two or three;

Sumchus says, the Edim Zomemim pay Kefel, and Reuven pays two for a Seh or three for an ox.

Question: Does Sumchus argue about the first or second law?

Suggestion: He argues about the first law.

Rejection: Surely he agree that partially nullified testimony is totally nullified!

Answer #1: Rather, he argues with the second law.

Question: Why does he argue with Chachamim? Their law is sound!

Answer #2: Rather, they argue in a different case. (The Beraisa did not state the case, nor Chachamim's opinion. The Gemara asserts that the case is as follows.)

Two witnesses said 'you stole'; Reuven answered, I stole and slaughtered or sold, but I did not steal in front of you. Two other witnesses were Mezim the first two. Witnesses then testified that Reuven stole and slaughtered or sold.

Chachamim hold that even though the admission to stealing was because of the witnesses, the admission to slaughtering or selling was voluntary, so it exempts Reuven from four or five. (The Edim Zomemim pay Kefel, and Reuven uses it to pay the one from whom he stole.

Sumchus holds that since the admission to stealing was due to the witnesses, also the admission to slaughtering or selling does not exempt Reuven from the fine.

Therefore, the Edim Zomemim pay Kefel, and Reuven pays two for a Seh or three for an ox.

Rejection (and Answer #3 to Question 2:j:4 - Rav Acha brei d'Rav Ika): No. All agree, admission to slaughtering does nothing. They argue about testimony that cannot be Huzam.

If two witnesses said 'you stole', and Reuven answered, I stole and slaughtered or sold, but I did not steal in front of you, rather, in front of Ploni and Almoni, and Ploni and Almoni testified that he stole and slaughtered or sold.

Chachamim hold that since Ploni and Almoni cannot be Huzmu (for Reuven admitted that they saw him steal and slaughter or sell), their testimony is invalid;

Sumchus says, even though they cannot be Huzmu, their testimony is valid.

Question: We hold that testimony that cannot be Huzam is invalid!

Answer: That is only when the witnesses do not know at what time they saw the testimony. Such testimony is worthless;

Here, the accused supports the testimony!

(Beraisa): The Edim Zomemim pay Kefel...

Question: Since Reuven admits that he stole, he should pay principal, (they should only pay him one)!

Correction (R. Elazar): The Beraisa should say, they pay the extra payment (of Kefel).