Commentary for Bava Kamma 145:19

ר' יוסי סבר למפרע הוא נפסל וכיון דמיד כי אסהידו הוא דמיפסלי כי איתזמו להו אטביחה איתזמו להו נמי אגניבה דהא תוך כדי דיבור כדיבור דמי

for in the case of one testimony the law is that a testimony becoming annulled in part becomes annulled altogether. Now, what is meant by 'two testimonies' and what is meant by 'one testimony'? Are we to say that 'two testimonies' means two absolutely independent testimonies, as in the case of two separate sets, and 'one testimony' means one set giving the two testimonies after each other, in which case R. Jose would hold that in the case of one testimony, i.e. where one set gave testimonies after each other, as, for instance where they had first given evidence about the theft and then gave evidence again about the slaughter, if they were subsequently declared <i>zomemim</i> with reference to their evidence about the slaughter, the law would be that a testimony becoming annulled regarding a part of it becomes annulled regarding the whole of it, and the witnesses would thus be considered <i>zomemim</i> also regarding the theft? On what could such a view be based? [Why indeed should the testimony given first about the theft be annulled through the annulment of a testimony given later?]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For surely a wrong committed at a later date could not affect the presumed integrity of a man on an earlier occasion. ');">¹⁹</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 145:19. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.