Bava Kamma

might adversely affect purchasers.  What practical difference is there between the two versions?  — Where two witnesses have proved one of a pair zomem, and other two witnesses have proved the other one of the pair zomem;  or again, where the disqualification of the witnesses is based upon an accusation of larceny brought by a subsequent pair.  According to the version which makes Raba base his view  on the fact of the procedure being anomalous, he would not apply it here, whereas according to the version which makes his reason the fear of adversely affecting purchasers, it would hold good even here. R. Jeremiah of Difti said: R. Papa decided in an actual case in accordance with the view of Raba. R. Ashi, however, stated that the law agrees with Abaye. And the law agrees with Abaye [against Raba] on [the matters known as] Y'AL KGM. We have learnt: 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 ZOMEMIM, THEY MUST PAY [THE ACCUSED] IN FULL. Does this not mean that they first gave evidence regarding the theft and then  gave evidence again regarding the slaughter, and that they were proved zomemim regarding their evidence about the theft and then were proved zomemim regarding their evidence about the slaughter? Now, if you assume that a witness proved zomem becomes disqualified retrospectively, [it would surely follow that] as soon as these witnesses were declared zomemim regarding the theft, it became clear retrospectively that when they gave evidence regarding the slaughter  they were already disqualified.  Why then should they pay [the retaliation penalty regarding their evidence] about the slaughter?  — It may be said that we are dealing here with a case where they were first declared zomemim regarding their evidence about the slaughter. But it may still be argued that after all since when they were subsequently declared zomemim regarding the theft, it became clear retrospectively that when they gave evidence regarding the slaughter, they had already been disqualified. Why then should they pay the retaliation penalty for the slaughter?  — This law would apply only when they testified at one and the same time to both theft and slaughter,  and were afterwards declared zomemim. May we say that this matter  formed the point at issue between the following Tannaim: If two witnesses gave evidence against a person that he had stolen an ox and the same witnesses also testified against him that he had slaughtered it, and were declared zomemim regarding the theft, as their evidence became annulled in part  it became annulled altogether. But if they were declared zomemim regarding the slaughter, the thief would still have to make double payment and they would have to pay [him] three-fold. R. Jose, however, said: These rulings  apply only in the case of two testimonies,  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 zomemim 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 zomemim 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?]  Must we not therefore say that 'two testimonies' means one evidence resembling two testimonies, that is to say, where one set gives two testimonies one after the other  but not where there is one testimony in which all the statements are made at the same time? Now it was assumed that there was agreement on all hands that statements following one another within the minimum of time [sufficient for the utterance of a greeting] are equivalent in law to a single undivided statement. The point at issue therefore between them  would be as follows: The Rabbis  would maintain that a witness proved zomem is disqualified only for the future, and since it is from that time onwards that the effect of zomem will apply it is only with reference to the slaughter regarding which they were declared zomemim that the effect of zomem will apply, whereas with reference to the theft regarding which they were not declared zomemim the effect of zomem will not apply.  R. Jose would on the other hand maintain that a witness proved zomem would become disqualified retrospectively, so that from the very moment they had given the evidence, regarding which they were proved zomemim, they would be considered disqualified; from which it would follow that when they were declared zomemim regarding the evidence about the slaughter the effect of zomem should also be extended to the evidence regarding the theft, for statements following one another within the minimum of time [sufficient for the utterance of a greeting] are equivalent in law to a single undivided statement. [Would the view of Abaye thus be against that of the Rabbis?] — To this I might reply: Were statements following one another within the minimum of time [sufficient for the utterance of a greeting] equivalent in law to a single undivided statement, it would have been unanimously held [by these Tannaim] that the pair proved zomemim should become disqualified retrospectively. But here it is this very principle whether statements following one another within the minimum of time [sufficient for the utterance of a greeting] should or should not be equivalent in law to a single undivided statement that was the point at issue between them: The Rabbis maintained that statements following one another within the minimum of time [sufficient for the utterance of a greeting]