Commentary for Bava Kamma 147:16

ואי סלקא דעתך הכחשה לאו תחילת הזמה היא אמאי משלמי הא אתכחשו להו מעיקרא אלא שמע מינה הכחשה תחילת הזמה היא

after they had already been confuted? Does this therefore not prove that a confutation does constitute a first step in a subsequent proof of an alibi? And Abaye? — He might have rejoined: I grant you that the earlier clause cannot be explained save on the assumption that there were three sets, for it was stated there 'as indeed the master also says',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Corroborating the witnesses stating that he put out the slave's eye and knocked out his tooth, for if these witnesses were the first to give evidence on the matter it would surely not be in the interest of the master to corroborate them. [R. Ashi does not accept as authentic the explanation given above in the name of Abaye, which was based on the assumption that Raba proved his ruling from the earlier clause, v. Tosaf. supra 73b. s.v. [H].] ');">¹⁵</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 147:16. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.