## Bava Kamma Daf 73a

###### Bava Kamma 73a:1
[Bava Kamma 73a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/73a:1)

מִשּׁוּם פְּסֵידָא דְלָקוֹחוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It is **due to** the potential monetary **loss for purchasers,** whose acquisitions had been validated by these witnesses between the time of the witnesses’ first testimony and when they were rendered conspiring witnesses. If the disqualification of the witnesses were applied retroactively, as by right it should, all these transactions would be nullified, which would cause a loss to these purchasers.


###### Bava Kamma 73a:2
[Bava Kamma 73a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/73a:2)

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? דְּאַסְהִידוּ בֵּיהּ תְּרֵי לְחַד, וּתְרֵי לְחַד. אִי נָמֵי דְּפַסְלִינְהוּ בְּגַזְלָנוּתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is** the practical difference **between** these two explanations of Rava’s opinion? After all, according to both explanations Rava did not apply the disqualification of conspiring witnesses retroactively. The Gemara explains that there is a difference in a case **where two** witnesses **testify about one** of the witnesses that he was not at the scene of the supposed crime, **and two** other witnesses testify **about** the other **one** witness in a similar manner. **Alternatively,** there is a practical difference between the two explanations in a case where two witnesses **disqualified** the first set of witnesses **by** testifying that they had once committed **robbery** and are therefore unfit to give testimony.


###### Bava Kamma 73a:3
[Bava Kamma 73a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/73a:3)

לְהָךְ לִישָּׁנָא דְּאָמְרַתְּ מִשּׁוּם חִידּוּשׁ – לֵיכָּא. לְהָךְ לִישָּׁנָא דְּאָמְרַתְּ מִשּׁוּם פְּסֵידָא דְלָקוֹחוֹת – אִיכָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: **According to this version** in **which you say** that Rava’s rejection of retroactive disqualification was **because** it is **a novelty,** in these two circumstances **there is no** novelty, and therefore he would agree that the disqualification should be retroactive. **According to that version** in **which you say** that Rava’s concern was **due to** a potential **loss for purchasers,** in these two circumstances **there is** a concern for a potential loss for purchasers. Consequently, in these circumstances as well Rava would reject retroactive disqualification.


###### Bava Kamma 73a:4
[Bava Kamma 73a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/73a:4)

אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה מִדִּפְתִּי: עֲבַד רַב פָּפָּא עוֹבָדָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרָבָא. רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: הִלְכְתָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּאַבָּיֵי. וְהִלְכְתָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּאַבָּיֵי בְּיע״ל קג״ם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti related: Rav Pappa** once **took action,** i.e., ruled in a case, **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rava,** and rejected retroactive disqualification of conspiring witnesses. **Rav Ashi said: The *halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion **of Abaye** with regard to retroactive disqualification of conspiring witnesses. The Gemara provides a principle: **And** in disputes between Abaye and Rava the *halakha* is in accordance with the opinion of Rava, except for six cases in which **the *halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion **of Abaye.** They are: **In** the cases represented by the mnemonic ***yod-ayin-lamed kuf-gimmel-mem*.** These *halakhot* are the following: Unknown despair [*ye’ush*]; conspiring witness [*eidim*] who are disqualified retroactively; a side post [*leḥi*] standing alone; betrothal [*kiddushin*] that is not given to consummation; revealing intent with a bill of divorce [*get*]; and an apostate [*mumar*] who sins rebelliously.


###### Bava Kamma 73a:5
[Bava Kamma 73a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/73a:5)

תְּנַן: גָּנַב עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם, וְטָבַח וּמָכַר עַל פִּיהֶם, וְנִמְצְאוּ זוֹמְמִין – מְשַׁלְּמִין אֶת הַכֹּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks a question with regard to Abaye’s opinion from that which **we learned** in the mishna: If one **stole** an ox or a sheep, as established **based on** the testimony of **two** witnesses, **and** he **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 conspiring witnesses **pay everything,** including the fourfold or fivefold payment.


###### Bava Kamma 73a:6
[Bava Kamma 73a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/73a:6)

מַאי, לָאו שֶׁהֵעִידוּ עַל הַגְּנֵיבָה, וְחָזְרוּ וְהֵעִידוּ עַל הַטְּבִיחָה, וְהוּזַּמּוּ עַל הַגְּנֵיבָה וְחָזְרוּ וְהוּזַּמּוּ עַל הַטְּבִיחָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the question: **What, is it not** referring to a case in **which** the events occurred in the following sequence: The witnesses **testified concerning the theft** of the animal, **and then testified concerning the** animal’s **slaughter. And** subsequently **they were rendered conspiring witnesses** for their testimony **concerning the theft, and then they were rendered conspiring witnesses** for their testimony **concerning the slaughter.**


###### Bava Kamma 73a:7
[Bava Kamma 73a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/73a:7)

וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ לְמַפְרֵעַ הוּא נִפְסָל, הָנֵי – כֵּיוָן דְּאִיתַּזַּמוּ לְהוּ אַגְּנֵיבָה, אִיגַּלַּאי מִילְּתָא לְמַפְרֵעַ דְּכִי אַסְהִדוּ אַטְּבִיחָה – פְּסוּלִין הֲווֹ; אַמַּאי מְשַׁלְּמִין אַטְּבִיחָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if it enters your mind** to say, in accordance with the opinion of Abaye, that a conspiring witness **is disqualified retroactively** from the time he provided his testimony, then with regard to **these** witnesses, **once they are rendered conspiring witnesses concerning the theft, the matter becomes clarified retroactively that when they testified concerning the slaughter they were disqualified** to serve as witnesses. Consequently, that testimony should be rejected. **Why,** then, **must they pay** the fourfold or fivefold payment for their testimony **concerning** the animal’s **slaughter?**


###### Bava Kamma 73a:8
[Bava Kamma 73a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/73a:8)

אָמְרִי: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁהוּזַּמּוּ עַל הַטְּבִיחָה תְּחִילָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **say** in response: **With what are we dealing here?** We are dealing with a case **where** the events did not happen in this sequence. Rather, the witnesses were **first rendered conspiring witnesses** with regard to their testimony **concerning** the animal’s **slaughter,** and only afterward were they rendered conspiring witnesses with regard to the theft.


###### Bava Kamma 73a:9
[Bava Kamma 73a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/73a:9)

אָמְרִי: סוֹף סוֹף, כִּי הָדְרִי מִיתַּזְּמִי אַגְּנֵיבָה, אִיגַּלַּאי מִילְּתָא דְּכִי אַסְהִדוּ אַטְּבִיחָה – פְּסוּלִין הֲווֹ; אַמַּאי מְשַׁלְּמִי אַטְּבִיחָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **say,** in rejection of this answer: **Ultimately, when** they **are subsequently rendered conspiring witnesses** with regard to their testimony **concerning the theft, the matter becomes clarified retroactively that when they testified concerning the slaughter they were disqualified** from providing testimony. **Why,** then, **must they pay** the fourfold or fivefold payment for their testimony **concerning the** animal’s **slaughter?**


###### Bava Kamma 73a:10
[Bava Kamma 73a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/73a:10)

וְהִלְכְתָא: שֶׁהֵעִידוּ בְּבַת אַחַת, וְהוּזַּמּוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara gives its final answer: **And the *halakha*** is in accordance with the opinion of Abaye, since the mishna can be explained as discussing a case **where** the witnesses **testified** concerning the theft of the animal and its slaughter **at the same time, and** afterward **they were rendered conspiring witnesses** with regard to testimony about both matters. Therefore, even if the disqualification of these witnesses is established retroactively, they were not disqualified when they provided their single testimony concerning the theft and the slaughter.


###### Bava Kamma 73a:11
[Bava Kamma 73a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/73a:11)

לֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי: הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם מְעִידִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁגָּנַב, וְהֵן מְעִידִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁטָּבַח, וְהוּזַּמּוּ עַל הַגְּנֵיבָה – עֵדוּת שֶׁבָּטְלָה מִקְצָתָהּ, בָּטְלָה כּוּלָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara proposes: **Let us say** that the dispute between Abaye and Rava is **parallel to** a dispute between ***tanna’im*.** As it is taught in a *baraita*: In a case where **there were two** witnesses **testifying against** someone, claiming **that** he **stole** an animal, **and they** subsequently **testify against him that** he **slaughtered** the animal, **and they were rendered conspiring witnesses** only with regard to their testimony **concerning the theft,** the *halakha* is in accordance with the principle that **testimony that was partially invalidated is entirely invalidated.** In other words, the testimony concerning the slaughter of the animal is null and void, as there is no longer any testimony that the animal was ever stolen. Therefore, the witnesses pay the double payment for having attempted to cause the alleged thief to pay that amount, while the accused is entirely exempt.


###### Bava Kamma 73a:12
[Bava Kamma 73a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/73a:12)

הוּזַּמּוּ עַל הַטְּבִיחָה – הוּא מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל, וְהֵן מְשַׁלְּמִין תַּשְׁלוּמֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
But **if they were rendered conspiring witnesses** only with regard to their testimony **concerning the slaughter,** their testimony about the theft remains valid. Consequently, the thief **pays** the **double payment, and** the witnesses **pay** a twofold or **threefold payment** for having attempted to cause the thief to pay this amount, which is the fine for slaughter or sale beyond his double payment.


###### Bava Kamma 73a:13
[Bava Kamma 73a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/73a:13)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בִּשְׁתֵּי עֵדִיּוֹת, אֲבָל בְּעֵדוּת אַחַת – עֵדוּת שֶׁבָּטְלָה מִקְצָתָהּ, בָּטְלָה כּוּלָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **Rabbi Yosei said: In what** case **is this statement said?** It is said when the theft and the slaughter were established **by two** separate **testimonies. But** if these matters were established **by one** single **testimony,** then even if they were rendered conspiring witnesses with regard to the testimony concerning the slaughter, the *halakha* is in accordance with the principle that **testimony that was partially invalidated is entirely invalidated.** When the testimony concerning the slaughter is invalidated the testimony concerning the theft is likewise negated, and the alleged thief is not required to pay the double payment. This concludes the *baraita*.


###### Bava Kamma 73a:14
[Bava Kamma 73a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/73a:14)

מַאי ״בִּשְׁתֵּי עֵדִיּוֹת״, וּמַאי ״בְּעֵדוּת אַחַת״? אִילֵימָא ״בִּשְׁתֵּי עֵדִיּוֹת״ – בִּשְׁתֵּי עֵדִיּוֹת מַמָּשׁ, בִּשְׁתֵּי כִּתּוֹת; ״בְּעֵדוּת אַחַת״ – בְּכַת אַחַת בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes Rabbi Yosei’s statement. **What** did Rabbi Yosei mean when he said: **By two** separate **testimonies, and what** did he mean when he said: **By one** single **testimony? If we say** that the phrase: **By two** separate **testimonies,** means **literally by two** separate testimonies, i.e., **by two** separate **sets** of witnesses, one of which testifies concerning the theft while the other testifies concerning the slaughter, this would mean that the expression: **By one** single **testimony,** means **by one set** of witnesses that testifies to both the theft and the slaughter, **one** matter **after the other.**


###### Bava Kamma 73a:15
[Bava Kamma 73a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/73a:15)

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: בְּעֵדוּת אַחַת – בְּכַת אַחַת בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה, כִּי מַסְהֲדִי אַגְּנֵיבָה וַהֲדַר מַסְהֲדִי אַטְּבִיחָה, כִּי מִתַּזְּמִי אַטְּבִיחָה – עֵדוּת שֶׁבָּטְלָה מִקְצָתָהּ בָּטְלָה כּוּלָּהּ, וְאִיתַּזַּמוּ לְהוּ אַגְּנֵיבָה; מֵהֵיכָא תֵּיתֵי הָךְ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** if so, when **Rabbi Yosei** then **says** that the facts are established **by one testimony,** he meant **one set** of witnesses testifying about both matters, **one** matter **after the other,** i.e., **that they testify concerning the theft and then testify concerning the slaughter.** Therefore, **when they are rendered conspiring witnesses** only **with regard to the slaughter,** the *halakha* is determined in accordance with the principle that **testimony that was partially invalidated is entirely invalidated. And** consequently Rabbi Yosei would maintain that **they are** considered to have been **rendered conspiring witnesses concerning the theft** as well. The Gemara asks: **From where would this be derived?** Why should the earlier testimony about the theft be negated by their status as conspiring witnesses from the later testimony concerning the slaughter?


###### Bava Kamma 73a:16
[Bava Kamma 73a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/73a:16)

אֶלָּא לָאו ״בִּשְׁתֵּי עֵדִיּוֹת״ – בְּעֵדוּת אַחַת כְּעֵין שְׁתֵּי עֵדִיּוֹת, וּמַאי נִינְהוּ – כַּת אַחַת בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה; אֲבָל בְּעֵדוּת אַחַת בְּבַת אַחַת – לֹא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** is it **not** the case that when Rabbi Yosei said: **By two testimonies,** he meant: **By a single testimony** that is **similar to two testimonies. And what is that?** It is **one set** of witnesses who testify about both the theft and the slaughter, **one** matter **after the other,** at two separate times. **But** if these matters were established **by one** single **testimony,** when the witnesses testified about both matters **at the same time,** Rabbi Yosei concedes that these are **not** considered two separate testimonies, despite the fact that they refer to two different events.


###### Bava Kamma 73a:17
[Bava Kamma 73a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/73a:17)

וְסַבְרוּהָ, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא: תּוֹךְ כְּדֵי דִיבּוּר – כְּדִיבּוּר דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues to analyze the dispute between Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis: The *amora’im* discussing this matter **assumed that** according to **everyone,** i.e., both Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis, if a witness pauses briefly in his testimony and then continues to testify, it is considered one long testimony. This is in accordance with the principle that the legal status of a pause or retraction **within** the time required **for speaking** a short phrase **is like** that of continuous **speech.** Therefore, the two testimonies, the one concerning the theft and the one concerning the slaughter, are considered a single testimony.


###### Bava Kamma 73a:18
[Bava Kamma 73a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/73a:18)

מַאי, לָאו בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי – דְּרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: מִכָּאן וּלְהַבָּא הוּא נִפְסָל, וְכֵיוָן דְּמֵהַהִיא שַׁעְתָּא קָא מִיתַּזְּמִי – אַטְּבִיחָה דְּקָא מִיתַּזְּמִי, אִיתַּזּוּם; אַגְּנֵיבָה דְּלָא מִיתַּזְּמִי, לָא אִיתַּזּוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks with regard to the above: **What, is it not with regard to this** that Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis **disagree? As the Rabbis maintain,** like Rava, **that** a conspiring witness **is disqualified from here on,** i.e., from when he is rendered a conspiring witness. **And since** it was only **from that time,** when the other witnesses testify about them, **that** they **are rendered conspiring witnesses,** it is only with regard to their testimony **concerning** the animal’s **slaughter that they are rendered conspiring witnesses,** whereas **concerning the theft** itself **they are not rendered conspiring witnesses.**


###### Bava Kamma 73a:19
[Bava Kamma 73a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/73a:19)

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי סָבַר: לְמַפְרֵעַ הוּא נִפְסָל, וְכֵיוָן דְּמִיָּד כִּי אַסְהִידוּ הוּא דְּמִיפַּסְלִי, אִי אִיתַּזַּמוּ לְהוּ אַטְּבִיחָה – אִיתַּזַּמוּ לְהוּ נָמֵי אַגְּנֵיבָה, דְּהָא תּוֹךְ כְּדֵי דִיבּוּר – כְּדִיבּוּר דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And **Rabbi Yosei holds,** like Abaye, **that** a conspiring witness **is disqualified retroactively,** from when he provided his testimony. **And** consequently, **since they are disqualified immediately when they testify, if they are rendered conspiring witnesses concerning the slaughter they are rendered conspiring witnesses concerning the theft as well, as** the legal status of a pause or retraction **within** the time required **for speaking** a short phrase **is like** that of continuous **speech,** i.e., the two testimonies are considered one unit.


###### Bava Kamma 73a:20
[Bava Kamma 73a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/73a:20)

אָמְרִי: אִי תּוֹךְ כְּדֵי דִיבּוּר כְּדִיבּוּר דָּמֵי, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לְמַפְרֵעַ הוּא נִפְסָל. אֶלָּא הָכָא בְּתוֹךְ כְּדֵי דִיבּוּר כְּדִיבּוּר דָּמֵי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי – רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: תּוֹךְ כְּדֵי דִיבּוּר

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **say,** in rejection of this opinion: **If** it were accepted that the legal status of a pause or retraction **within** the time required **for speaking** a short phrase **is like** that of continuous **speech, everyone** would agree that the witnesses are **disqualified retroactively,** and their testimony with regard to the theft would also be negated. **But here they disagree** about that very issue, i.e., whether the legal status of a pause or retraction **within** the time required **for speaking** a short phrase **is like** that of continuous **speech. The Rabbis maintain that** if the pause is **within** the time required **for speaking** a short phrase, then the two aspects of the testimony provided by the witnesses