Commentary for Bava Kamma 147:3

היכי דמי אי דלא קא מודו להו בתראי בחבלא כלל דמי כוליה עבד לרב בעי שלומי ליה

while they also proved them <i>zomemim</i>? But still, what were the circumstances? If the witnesses of the second set post-dated the injury, why should the witnesses of the first set still not have to pay the master the whole value of the slave, since they falsely alleged liability to have rested upon a man at the time when that man was in fact not yet subject to any liability? — We must therefore say that the witnesses of the second set antedated the injury. But again, if [at the time when the witnesses of the first set gave evidence] the master had not yet appeared before the Court [on the matter], why should they still not have to pay him the whole value of the slave as at that time he was still a man subject to no liability?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it was they who conspired to allege liability against him; cf. Rashi and Tosaf. a.l. and Mak. 5a. ');">³</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 147:3. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.