Bava Kamma 73a

בבא קמא ע״ג ע״א

Learn Bava Kamma 73a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Bava Kamma 73a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Whether an עד זומם is disqualified למפרע: the reasons for רבא, the הלכה like אביי, a משנה that challenges it, and a parallel argument between תנאים

Overview

אביי holds that an עד זומם is disqualified למפרע, from the time of his false testimony. רבא holds he is disqualified only from now on. The גמרא finishes the second reason given for רבא, the loss to buyers, and shows two cases where this reason and the חידוש reason give different results. רב פפא ruled like רבא in practice, but רב אשי rules like אביי. This is one of the six cases, remembered as יע״ל קג״ם, where the הלכה follows אביי. A משנה about witnesses to theft and slaughter seems to challenge אביי. After one answer is rejected, the גמרא explains the משנה as witnesses who testified about both at once. The גמרא then tries to match אביי and רבא to an argument between רבי יוסי and the רבנן in a ברייתא. It rejects that match and instead places their argument on whether תוך כדי דיבור כדיבור דמי, a point that continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

The steps (23)

1. ResolutionSecond reason for רבא: protecting buyers
2. QuestionWhat difference do the two reasons make?
3. ResponseTwo cases where the reasons differ
4. ResponseHow each reason rules in those cases
5. Statementרב פפא ruled like רבא in practice
6. Statementרב אשי rules like אביי
7. ConclusionThe six cases where we follow אביי
8. ChallengeQuoting the משנה about witnesses to theft and slaughter
9. ChallengeIf disqualification is retroactive, why pay for the slaughter?
10. ResolutionThe משנה is about witnesses refuted on the slaughter first
11. RejectionThe order of refutation does not save the answer
12. ResolutionBoth testimonies were given at the same moment
13. ProofProposing that אביי and רבא match an older argument between תנאים
14. StatementRefuted only on the slaughter: the thief still pays double
15. Statementרבי יוסי limits the ruling to two testimonies
16. QuestionWhat do 'two testimonies' and 'one testimony' mean?
17. ResponseFirst try: two testimonies means two groups of witnesses
18. ChallengeWhy would a later refutation cancel an earlier testimony?
19. ResolutionTwo testimonies means one group at two different times
20. StatementStarting assumption: a quick follow-up counts as one statement
21. ProofSuggestion: the argument is about when a refuted witness becomes invalid
22. RejectionRejection: if it is one statement, everyone would agree
23. ResolutionNew explanation: the argument is about the quick follow-up rule itself