## Rashi on Bava Kamma Daf 73a

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

פסידא דלקוחות - שחתמוהו על שטר מכירה בינתים:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
Loss for purchasers - since [the witnesses] signed on a deed of sale in the meantime.


###### Rashi on Bava Kamma 73a:2:1
[Rashi on Bava Kamma 73a:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rashi%20on%20Bava%20Kamma/r/73a:2:1)

מאי בינייהו - בין הני תרתי לישנא דרבא:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
What is the difference - between these two versions of Rava['s opinion]?


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

תרי לחד - עמנו הייתם ותרי אחריני לחד דליכא חידושא:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
Two about one - [who testify] that you were with us [and could not have witnessed the supposed crime], and two others [testify] about the [other witness]. [In this case,] there is no novelty [since each single witness is contradicted by two others, as opposed to two against two which was a novelty].


###### Rashi on Bava Kamma 73a:2:3
[Rashi on Bava Kamma 73a:2:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rashi%20on%20Bava%20Kamma/r/73a:2:3)

בגזלנותא - שלא הזימוהו אלא העידו שנים על אלו שהן גזלנין והכא ליכא למימר סמוך אהני דהא מילתא אחריתא היא:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
By robbery - where they did not render them conspiring witnesses, but rather two testified regarding these [witnesses] being robbers. In this case, it is not possible to say "rely on them [for subsequent testimony]" because [their being robbers] is a different matter [than the case at hand].


###### Rashi on Bava Kamma 73a:4:1
[Rashi on Bava Kamma 73a:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rashi%20on%20Bava%20Kamma/r/73a:4:1)

יע"ל קג"ם - סימני שמועות הן וזו אחד מהן עד זומם:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
*yod-ayin-lamed kuf-gimmel-mem* - these are a mnemonic for topics; this [topic] is one of them: a conspiring witness.


###### Rashi on Bava Kamma 73a:7:1
[Rashi on Bava Kamma 73a:7:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rashi%20on%20Bava%20Kamma/r/73a:7:1)

פסולין הוו - ואין עדותן עדות:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
They were disqualified - and their testimony was invalid.


###### Rashi on Bava Kamma 73a:7:2
[Rashi on Bava Kamma 73a:7:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rashi%20on%20Bava%20Kamma/r/73a:7:2)

אמאי - משלמי על הטביחה:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
Why - should they pay [the four- or five-fold payment] for the slaughter?


###### Rashi on Bava Kamma 73a:9:1
[Rashi on Bava Kamma 73a:9:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rashi%20on%20Bava%20Kamma/r/73a:9:1)

כי הדרי מיתזמי אגניבה - כשחוזרין וניזומין על הגניבה איגלאי מילתא כו':

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
When they are subsequently rendered conspiring witnesses concerning the theft - when they are subsequently rendered conspiring witnesses concerning the theft, the matter becomes clarified, etc.


###### Rashi on Bava Kamma 73a:10:1
[Rashi on Bava Kamma 73a:10:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rashi%20on%20Bava%20Kamma/r/73a:10:1)

ה"ג והלכתא שהעידו בבת אחת והוזמו - ולא גרסינן והוזמו בבת אחת דכיון דהעידו בבת אחת ליכא למימר בשעת עדות טביחה פסולין הוו ואפילו אי אמרינן למפרע נפסל דהא תוך כדי דיבור הוה והזמה לא איכפת לן אי בבת אחת אי בזה אחר זה ובלבד שיזומו על הטביחה תחילה:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
Our version of the text: and the *halakha* is where they testified at the same time and were rendered conspiring witnesses - and we do not have the text as "and they were rendered conspiring witnesses at the same time," since they testified at the same time it is not possible to say that they were disqualified at the time of their testimony about the slaughter. Even if we say that they are disqualified retroactively [which would normally mean that only the first testimony was effective], since [both testimonies] were given in the same utterance, regarding conspiring witnesses it doesn't matter if [conspiracy was proved] all at once or one after another, as long as the conspiracy was proved regarding the slaughter first.


###### Rashi on Bava Kamma 73a:11:1
[Rashi on Bava Kamma 73a:11:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rashi%20on%20Bava%20Kamma/r/73a:11:1)

היו שנים מעידים אותו שגנב והן - עצמם מעידים אותו שטבח:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
If there were two testifying against someone, claiming that he stole, and they - themselves testified against him, that he slaughtered.


###### Rashi on Bava Kamma 73a:11:2
[Rashi on Bava Kamma 73a:11:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rashi%20on%20Bava%20Kamma/r/73a:11:2)

בטלה כולה - ומשלמי כפל והוא פטור דכיון דלא גנב לא טבח ואפילו חזרו והוזמו על הטביחה פטורין:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
Is entirely invalidated - and [the witnesses] pay the double payment, and [the alleged thief] is exempt -- because he did not steal, he cannot [be said to] have slaughtered. Even if they subsequently were rendered conspiring witnesses regarding slaughtering, they are exempt [from the four- or five-fold payment].


###### Rashi on Bava Kamma 73a:12:1
[Rashi on Bava Kamma 73a:12:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rashi%20on%20Bava%20Kamma/r/73a:12:1)

הוזמו על הטביחה - ולא על הגניבה:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
If they were rendered conspiring witnesses concerning the slaughter - and not concerning the theft.


###### Rashi on Bava Kamma 73a:13:1
[Rashi on Bava Kamma 73a:13:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rashi%20on%20Bava%20Kamma/r/73a:13:1)

במה דברים אמורים - דהוא משלם כפל ולא בטל עדות גניבה בשתי עדיות:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
In what case is this statement said - that he pays double, and that the testimony regarding the theft is not nullified? Where there are two [separate] testimonies.


###### Rashi on Bava Kamma 73a:14:1
[Rashi on Bava Kamma 73a:14:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rashi%20on%20Bava%20Kamma/r/73a:14:1)

בכת אחת בזה אחר זה - שהעידו היום על הגניבה ואמרו באחד בשבת גנב ולמחר על הטביחה ואמרו בשני בשבת טבח:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
By one set of witnesses, one after the other - who testified today regarding the theft, saying he stole on Sunday. The next day, [the same set of witnesses returned to testify] regarding the slaughter, and said that he slaughtered on Monday.


###### Rashi on Bava Kamma 73a:15:1
[Rashi on Bava Kamma 73a:15:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rashi%20on%20Bava%20Kamma/r/73a:15:1)

וא"ר יוסי - דכי אמרי להו סהדי עמנו הייתם ביום שני הוזמו אף על הגניבה שביום ראשון מהיכא תיתי האי:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
And Rabbi Yosei says - that when the witnesses said to them "you were with us on Monday," they were rendered conspiring witnesses with regard to the testimony regarding the theft on Sunday as well. From where would this be derived?


###### Rashi on Bava Kamma 73a:16:1
[Rashi on Bava Kamma 73a:16:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rashi%20on%20Bava%20Kamma/r/73a:16:1)

ומאי נינהו כו' אבל בעדות אחת בבת אחת - שהעידו על שתיהן זו בתוך כדי דיבור של זו ואמרו באחד בשבת גנב ובשני בשבת טבח והוזמו על שני בשבת ואע"ג דאאחד בשבת לא איתזום מיהו איגלאי מלתא דכי אסהוד פסולין הוו דסבר ר' יוסי למפרע הוא נפסל ובטלה כל עדות אותה שעה שכולה עדות אחת היא:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
And what is that ... But if by one single testimony, at the same time - in which they testified regarding both matters, each within the same time of utterance of the other, and said that he stole on Sunday and slaughtered on Monday. If they were rendered conspiring witnesses for Monday['s slaughtering], even though they were not rendered conspiring witnesses regarding Sunday['s theft], it has been revealed that they were disqualified at the time they gave testimony. This is because Rabbi Yosei holds that they are disqualified retroactively, and the entire testimony that they gave at that time is nullified, since it is all one [act of] testimony.


###### Rashi on Bava Kamma 73a:17:1
[Rashi on Bava Kamma 73a:17:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rashi%20on%20Bava%20Kamma/r/73a:17:1)

כדי דיבור - לקמן מפרש:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
For speaking - this is explained later on. [Bava Kamma 73b:6]


###### Rashi on Bava Kamma 73a:18:1
[Rashi on Bava Kamma 73a:18:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rashi%20on%20Bava%20Kamma/r/73a:18:1)

מכאן ולהבא - מיום שהוזמו ולא מיום שהעידו:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
From here on - from the day that they were rendered conspiring witnesses, and not from the day they testified.


###### Rashi on Bava Kamma 73a:18:2
[Rashi on Bava Kamma 73a:18:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rashi%20on%20Bava%20Kamma/r/73a:18:2)

אגניבה דלא מיתזמי לא איתזום - ואע"ג דבהדדי אסהידו ליה הא לא אתחיל פסולייהו מההיא שעתא דנימא אע"ג דאאחד בשבת לא איתזום מיהו שעת עדותן שעת פסלות היתה:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
Concerning the theft they are not rendered conspiring witnesses - even though they testified as to both things at the same time, their disqualification did not commence from that moment, such that we would say that even though they were not rendered conspiring witnesses regarding [the testimony as to the events of] Sunday, nevertheless, the moment of their testimony was a moment of disqualification.


###### Rashi on Bava Kamma 73a:19:1
[Rashi on Bava Kamma 73a:19:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rashi%20on%20Bava%20Kamma/r/73a:19:1)

איתזמו להו [נמי] אגניבה - האי איתזמו לאו הזמה דוקא (נקט) לשלם ממון אלא איפסלו להו אגניבה משום פסול עדות:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
They are rendered conspiring witnesses concerning the theft as well - this "being rendered conspiring witnesses" is not that they have actually conspired which would have made them liable to pay money, but that [their testimony] regarding the theft is disqualified on account of their being disqualified to give testimony.