Commentary for Bava Kamma 147:1
מדסיפא במיפך והזמה רישא נמי במיפך והזמה
since, the later clause deals with witnesses whose statements were transposed by the same set of witnesses that proved them <i>zomemim</i>, so also the earlier clause deals with a case where the statements of the witnesses were transposed by the same subsequent set of witnesses who proved their alibi. For it says in the later clause: If a set of witnesses declare: We testify against so-and-so that he had first knocked out his slave's tooth and then put out his eye — as indeed the servant says — and they were by subsequent witnesses proved <i>zomemim</i>, they would have to pay the value of the eye to the master. Now how are we to understand this? If we assume that the witnesses of the second set did not agree [with those of the first set] regarding any injury at all, why then should the first witnesses not have to pay the master the whole value of the slave?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whom they wanted without proper ground to set free. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 147:1. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.