QUESTION: The Mishnah states that when two witnesses testify that a person stole an animal, and then one witness or the Ganav himself testifies that he slaughtered the animal, the Ganav must pay Tashlumei Kefel but not Arba'ah v'Chamishah. The Gemara asks that it is obvious that one witness cannot obligate him to pay Arba'ah v'Chamishah. The Gemara answers that the Mishnah means that just as the Ganav is obligated to pay Arba'ah v'Chamishah when another witness joins the first witness, he is obligated to pay in a case where he first admits that he slaughtered the animal and then two witnesses come and testify that he slaughtered the animal. The Gemara says that this is not like the view of Rav Huna in the name of Rav who says that when one admits to a Kenas and then witnesses come afterward, he is still exempt from paying the Kenas.

Why does the Gemara quote this opinion in the name of "Rav Huna in the name of Rav"? The Gemara elsewhere quotes Rav himself who stated this opinion (and not that Rav Huna said it in his name). (See, for example, Bava Kama 75a, where the Gemara quotes the dispute between Rav and Shmuel regarding this matter.) Why does the Gemara here not quote Rav directly?

ANSWER: The TORAS CHAIM answers that the dispute between Rav and Shmuel later (75a) may apply only in a case in which the person admits to everything. In such a case, Rav rules that his admission exempts him even when witnesses come afterward. In the case of the Gemara here, however, the person admits only to part of the obligation. In such a case, one might have thought that Rav agrees that when witnesses come afterward the person is obligated to pay the Kenas. It is Rav Huna who teaches that even in such a case, Rav rules that the person is exempt when witnesses come later.

QUESTION: Rav Chisda questions Rav Huna from a Beraisa which relates that Raban Gamliel blinded the eye of Tevi his servant, and Raban Gamliel rejoiced with great joy because thereby Tevi was able to be set free. (Raban Gamliel was unable to set Tevi free in the normal manner of giving him a Get Shichrur, because one who frees his servant transgresses a Mitzvas Aseh).

Why was Raban Gamliel so happy? The Gemara earlier (26b) teaches that only when the master blinds his servant's eye intentionally does the servant go free, as derived from the verse (Shemos 21:26). Certainly Raban Gamliel did not sin and intentionally hit his servant. The loss of Tevi's eye must have been an accident. Why, then, was Raban Gamliel happy, if an Eved does not go free when he loses his eye through an accident?

ANSWER: The YA'AVETZ and others answer that Raban Gamliel followed the view of the Chachamim who disagree with Raban Shimon ben Gamliel and maintain that the Eved goes free even when the master blinds his eye unintentionally.

The KOVA YESHU'AH adds that the KESEF MISHNEH (Hilchos Avadim 5:11) writes that the RAMBAM rules that the Chachamim -- who disagree with Raban Shimon ben Gamliel and maintain that the Eved goes free even when the master blinds him unintentionally -- nevertheless agree that the Eved does not go free when the master had no intention to do anything to the eye at all. They maintain that he goes free only when the master was doing something with the eye (for example, he was involved in a medical procedure) and he accidentally blinded the Eved's eye.

The Kova Yeshu'ah writes that according to this opinion, although Raban Gamliel did not intend to harm the eye of his Eved, he nevertheless was doing some act to his eye (such as a medical procedure) during which he accidentally blinded him, and thus his Eved indeed goes free. (I. Alsheich)