Study Bava Kamma folio 73A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
It is due to the potential monetary loss for purchasers, whose acquisitions had been validated by these witnesses between the time of the witnesses’ first testimony and when they were rendered conspiring witnesses. If the disqualification of the witnesses were applied retroactively, as by right it
The Talmud asks: What is the practical difference between these two explanations of Rava’s opinion? After all, according to both explanations Rava did not apply the disqualification of conspiring witnesses retroactively. The Talmud explains that there is a difference in a case where two witnesses te
The Talmud elaborates: According to this version in which you say that Rava’s rejection of retroactive disqualification was because it is a novelty, in these two circumstances there is no novelty, and therefore he would agree that the disqualification should be retroactive. According to that versio
R' Yirmeya of Difti related: Rav Pappa once took action, i.e., ruled in a case, in accordance with the opinion of Rava, and rejected retroactive disqualification of conspiring witnesses. Rav Ashi said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Abaye with regard to retroactive disqualificati
The Talmud asks a question with regard to Abaye’s opinion from that which we learned in the Mishnah: If one stole an ox or a sheep, as established based on the testimony of two witnesses, and he slaughtered the animal or sold it, also based on the testimony of the same witnesses, and these witnesses