If it performs its gorings at intervals - on three days.

Liable - as it is written, "from yesterday and the day before." [Exodus 21:29]

If her sightings occur at intervals - three sighting on three days -- she is impure for seven days, as it is written "has had a discharge of blood for many days," [Leviticus 15:25] and we expound "days" -- two; "many" -- three. [Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Section 5:8]

If her sightings were consecutive - on one day, she considered pure with respect to the seven-day impurity, but must "guard one day against the next" [a one-day impurity].

[The verse] states: "And this..." etc. - and it is due to scriptural decree that we do not expound an a fortiori argument [that the zava becomes impure for seven days due to sightings on one day].

The zav with the number of sightings - because the word zov is written three times in that verse [Leviticus 15:3], followed by "his impurity means this," which implies that it is through these three [sightings] that the zav becomes impure; it also writes "this" which implies that this only applies to what is [specifically] written about [in that verse, namely]: a zav [becomes impure] due to sightings. However, a zava is not [impure for seven days] due to sightings [alone].

Deals with sightings - that "and this" [Leviticus 15:3] is written regarding sightings [by a zav] and excludes [impurity for seven days due to] sightings of a zava.

Excludes days - in the form of a question.

Only with regard to reversals - that if it reverted for three days following its being forewarned, in that it saw oxen and did not gore, it reverts to its innocuous status.

In accordance with Rabbi Yehuda - in the mishna [Bava Kamma 23b:16].

His analysis is with him - his reasoning and proofs are with him.

To render the ox forewarned - and to exclude a case where he gored [three times] on one day.

Or to forewarn the man - we require three days in order to forewarn the owner of the ox.

On one day - and they testified about three gorings on three days.

If you say - three days are only mentioned regarding [the requirement of separate days] to render the ox forewarned -- and to exclude where its gorings were performed successively [over fewer than three days] -- then it should be rendered forewarned, since its gorings were separated in time.

It is now that they testified against me - all three groups came on the same day, but the Torah says three days.

And testified against in the presence of its owner - and testimony is only given in court.

There are three separate testimonies here - so that if one of them was nullified, the other two are not nullified, and through them [the owner still must] pay half damages. If none of them are nullified it is rendered forewarned.

But they are considered as one with regard to conspiring testimony - because it is through all three of them that it is rendered forewarned. Therefore, they are considered as one testimony regarding that, since if the first group is found to have been conspiring witnesses, [the owner] would only have to pay half damages for the third goring.

And they - the conspiring witnesses.

Are exempt - from paying for the third goring. Even though they caused him to have to pay full damages for it, they are exempt, since witnesses only pay money when all of them have been found to be conspiring witnesses.

They are all liable - [all three groups] collectively [are liable] to pay [the additional] half damages due to [the ox] being rendered forewarned upon the third goring. As for the "innocuous" aspect [of the damage done by the third goring], the last two witnesses who testified to [the goring] must pay [the corresponding other half of the damages].

If you say that [the purpose of the testimony is] to render the ox forewarned - then three days are required; but as for the man, he can be forewarned on one day -- we can then set up this case as a case where all [the groups of witnesses] came on one day. The third one who was damaged brought them to testify about the three gorings on three days. Therefore the first [groups of witnesses] are relevant to [the adjudication of] the ox being forewarned, since [through their testimony the third plaintiff can show that] there is a basis for the matter, and they came to render it forewarned. Thus [the first two groups of witnesses] cannot say that we came to prove liability from the earlier cases and not to render it forewarned -- because they certainly know from [the third group] that they have brought [testimony against] a thrice-goring [ox]. What then could [testimony about] the earlier gorings [accomplish] but to render it forewarned; after all, [all three groups] arrived together.