Reference for Ketubot 84:3

היכי דמי אי דלא עמד בדין כפילא מי איכא אלא פשיטא בשעמד בדין ומדרישא בשעמד בדין סיפא נמי בשעמד בדין

How is this statement to be understood? If [it refers to] a man whose had not yet been tried [the objection could be raised:] Is double compensation payable in such circumstances? Rather it is obvious that [it refers to one] who had already been tried. And since the first clause deals with one who had been tried, the final clause also must deal with one who had already been tried?

Explore reference for Ketubot 84:3. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.