Commentary for Bava Kamma 146:17

ממאי

and subsequently also proved <i>zomemim</i>, would be put to death, as the confutation was a first step in the subsequent proof of an alibi,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [The term 'alibi' is used here for convenience sake, as it deals here with the presence or absence of the witnesses of the alleged crime at the time when it was committed, rather than with the presence or absence of the accused, as the term is generally understood.] ');">¹⁶</span> though the proof of this was not yet complete at that time. Raba said: [The authority] on which I base this is that which has been taught: [If a set of witnesses declare], We testify that so-and-so has put out the eye of his slave<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For which he has to let him go free, cf. Ex. XXI, 26-27. ');">¹⁷</span> and<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Subsequently. ');">¹⁸</span> knocked out his tooth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For which he has to pay the five items in accordance with infra p. 473. ');">¹⁹</span> (and so indeed the master himself says), and these witnesses are [by subsequent witnesses] proved <i>zomemim</i>, they would have to pay<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In retaliation. ');">²⁰</span> the value of the eye to the slave.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Mak. 1. ');">²¹</span> How are we to understand this? If we assume, according to the apparent meaning of the text, that there was here no other pair of witnesses,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Giving evidence for the slave. ');">²²</span> why should they pay the value of the eye to the slave? After they have done their best to get him [undeservedly] freed, are they also to pay him the value of his eye? Moreover, should they in such a case not have to pay the owner for the full value of the slave [as they falsely demanded his freedom]? Furthermore, 'and so indeed the master himself says,' — how could the master be satisfied [with such a false allegation to his detriment]? Does it therefore not mean a case, e.g., in which a pair of witnesses had already appeared [previously] and stated that the master knocked out the slave's tooth and then put out his eye so that the master would have to pay him the value of his eye,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is of course more than that of his tooth. ');">²³</span> and a middle pair of witnesses appeared later and stated that the first put out the slave's eye and then his tooth, so that he would not have to give him anything but the value of his tooth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is less than that of his eye and thus giving evidence for the benefit of the master and against the slave. ');">²⁴</span> so that the first set of witnesses confuted the middle set, and it is to this that the words refer 'and so indeed the master himself says', for he was well satisfied with the statement alleged by the middle set? The text then goes on: 'And these are [by subsequent witnesses] proved zomemim' — that is, the middle set — 'they would have to pay the value of the eye to the slave'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the difference between the value of the eye and the value of the tooth of which they conspired to deprive the slave. ');">²⁵</span> Does not this show that the confutation is the first step in a subsequent proof of an alibi?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And that after the accusation of an alibi was proved, the law of retaliation will apply despite the fact that their evidence had already been previously impaired. ');">²⁶</span> — Abaye said: No; [what we can assume is] that the statement of these witnesses was transposed by a [second] set of witnesses, who also proved them <i>zomemim</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [There were, that is to say, only two sets of witnesses, the former set testifying that the injury was done to the eye first and then to the tooth, while the second set giving evidence to the contrary and at the same time proving the first set zomemim, in which case the first would have to pay the slave the value of his eye.] ');">²⁷</span> That this was so is evident,

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 146:17. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.