Commentary for Bava Kamma 148:7
ובפלוגתא עדים שהוכחשו ולבסוף הוזמו ר' יוחנן ור"א חד אמר נהרגין וחד אמר אין נהרגין
IF A THIEF [IS CONVICTED OF THE THEFT OF AN OX] ON THE EVIDENCE OF TWO WITNESSES, AND OF THE SLAUGHTER OR SALE OF IT ON THE EVIDENCE OF THE SAME TWO, AND THESE WITNESSES ARE SUBSEQUENTLY PROVED <i>ZOMEMIM</i>, THEY MUST PAY [THE ACCUSED] IN FULL. Does this not mean that the witnesses have first given evidence regarding the theft and then [some time later] testified to the slaughter, and that they were first proved <i>zomemim</i> regarding the theft and then [some time later] proved <i>zomemim</i> [also] regarding the slaughter? Now, the fact that they were proved <i>zomemim</i> regarding the theft is in itself a confutation of their evidence regarding the slaughter,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if the evidence regarding the theft fell to the ground it carried with it the evidence regarding the slaughter of the stolen animal. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 148:7. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.