Quoting%20commentary for Bava Kamma 148:8
תסתיים דר"א הוא דאמר אין נהרגין דאמר ר"א עדים שהוכחשו בנפש לוקין
and it is nevertheless stated that 'THEY MUST PAY THE ACCUSED IN FULL'. But if you assume that a confutation is not the first step in a subsequent proof of an alibi, why should they pay the retaliation penalty for the slaughter? Does not this then show confutation is a first step in a subsequent proof of an alibi? — It may, however, be said that we are dealing here with a case where for example they were first proved <i>zomemim</i> regarding the slaughter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which of course did not affect their evidence regarding the theft which was given on an earlier occasion. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
Explore quoting%20commentary for Bava Kamma 148:8. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.