Commentary for Bava Kamma 150:20

וסומכוס סבר עדות שאי אתה יכול להזימה הויא עדות

against the first witnesses that it was not in their presence that he committed the theft, while the plaintiff brought further witnesses who gave evidence against the thief that he had committed the theft [of an ox] and slaughtered it or sold it. They would thus differ as to the confession regarding the slaughter, the Rabbis holding that though in regard to the theft it was certainly because of the witnesses<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the first set of witnesses. ');">¹⁸</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 150:20. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.