Bava Kamma 75: The Psychology Behind Testimony

Today's daf focuses on the intricacies of admitting one's theft.  Does it matter where a person is when he admits his guilt?  What if a person admits to part of a crime but witnesses later testify differently?  We learn different examples of different thefts in different combinations.  

Great emphasis is put onto the testimony of witnesses in these situations.  However, the rabbis also consider the social and psychological pressures that might influence testimony - both the testimony of the thief and that of the witnesses.  For example, perhaps the thief testified only because he saw that witnesses were about to testify and he assumed that they would testify against him.

The thief's penalty is influenced by when his admitted his crime, how much he admitted, and what the victims say that they saw.  The penalty of four or fivefold might apply -- or not.  Witnesses can void the testimony of other witnesses.  If one has not stolen and animal, he cannot have slaughtered the animal, and thus the four or fivefold payment cannot apply.  But in some circumstances, the thief may have to pay between three and fivefold the worth of the stolen animal.

If those witnesses cannot recall the date or time of the theft, their testimony would be nullified in ordinary circumstances.  However, if a thief who testifies that he did steal in the face of witnesses renders their testimony valid.