Study Bava Kamma folio 74B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
the slave should go free on account of his eye, and if he knocked out his tooth he should go free on account of his tooth, and if the master both blinded his eye and knocked out his tooth, the slave should go free on account of both his eye and his tooth, without the master having to pay damages
Abaye said to him in response: With regard to your claim, the verse states: “And if a man smites the eye of his slave or the eye of his female slave and destroys it, he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake” (Exodus 21:26). The phrase “for his eye’s sake” indicates: But not for the sake of both
The Talmud returns to Rava’s opinion that the contradiction of testimony is the start of determining that testimony is conspiring testimony. Rav Idi bar Avin said: We too can learn from the Mishnah that Rava’s claim is correct, as it teaches (72b): If one stole an ox or a sheep, as established based
What, is it not referring to a case where they testified concerning the theft and then testified concerning the slaughter, and they were subsequently rendered conspiring witnesses with regard to the theft and then were rendered conspiring witnesses with regard to the slaughter?
Rav Idi bar Avin states his inference: But once they were rendered conspiring witnesses with regard to the theft, their testimony with regard to the slaughter is in effect contradicted, i.e., nullified, as testimony concerning the slaughter of an animal without prior testimony establishing that th