Commentary for Bava Kamma 145:20

אמרי אי תוך כדי דיבור כדיבור דמי דכולי עלמא למפרע הוא נפסל אלא הכא בתוך כדי דיבור כדיבור דמי קא מיפלגי רבנן סברי תוך כדי דיבור

Must we not therefore say that 'two testimonies' means one evidence resembling two testimonies, that is to say, where one set gives two testimonies one after the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., on different occasions. ');">²⁰</span> but not where there is one testimony in which all the statements are made at the same time? Now it was assumed that there was agreement on all hands that statements following one another within the minimum of time [sufficient for the utterance of a greeting] are equivalent in law to a single undivided statement. The point at issue therefore between them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Jose and the other Rabbis. ');">²¹</span> would be as follows: The Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Representing the anonymous opinion cited first. ');">²²</span> would maintain that a witness proved <i>zomem</i> is disqualified only for the future, and since it is from that time onwards that the effect of <i>zomem</i> will apply it is only with reference to the slaughter regarding which they were declared <i>zomemim</i> that the effect of <i>zomem</i> will apply, whereas with reference to the theft regarding which they were not declared <i>zomemim</i> the effect of <i>zomem</i> will not apply.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the accused will still have to pay double payment. ');">²³</span> R. Jose would on the other hand maintain that a witness proved <i>zomem</i> would become disqualified retrospectively, so that from the very moment they had given the evidence, regarding which they were proved <i>zomemim</i>, they would be considered disqualified; from which it would follow that when they were declared <i>zomemim</i> regarding the evidence about the slaughter the effect of <i>zomem</i> should also be extended to the evidence regarding the theft, for statements following one another within the minimum of time [sufficient for the utterance of a greeting] are equivalent in law to a single undivided statement. [Would the view of Abaye thus be against that of the Rabbis?] — To this I might reply: Were statements following one another within the minimum of time [sufficient for the utterance of a greeting] equivalent in law to a single undivided statement, it would have been unanimously held [by these Tannaim] that the pair proved <i>zomemim</i> should become disqualified retrospectively. But here it is this very principle whether statements following one another within the minimum of time [sufficient for the utterance of a greeting] should or should not be equivalent in law to a single undivided statement that was the point at issue between them: The Rabbis maintained that statements following one another within the minimum of time [sufficient for the utterance of a greeting]

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 145:20. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.