Loss for purchasers - since [the witnesses] signed on a deed of sale in the meantime.

What is the difference - between these two versions of Rava['s opinion]?

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].

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].

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

They were disqualified - and their testimony was invalid.

Why - should they pay [the four- or five-fold payment] for the slaughter?

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.

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.

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

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].

If they were rendered conspiring witnesses concerning the slaughter - and not concerning the theft.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

From here on - from the day that they were rendered conspiring witnesses, and not from the day they testified.

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.

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.