About this episode
Rav Nachman changed his mind and ruled that if one slaughtered and sold an animal that was jointly owned and the thief admitted to one owner, the thief would have to pay a partial payment of four/five times to the other owner. If so, how does Rav Nachman understand the difference between the cases of one who stole an animal of one's father in this Mishna and the next Mishna – why in the case where the father died before it was slaughtered does the thief not need to pay the four/five payment to his brothers? The Mishna rules that if one slaughtered the animal as a non-sacred animal in the Temple, one would be liable to the four/five payment. Rav Chavivi infers from this a ruling on a different debate about whether the act of slaughtering is only considered significant at the end of the act or is it significant already from the beginning of the slaughtering. Rav Huna rejects Rav Chavivi's inference but Rav Ashi reinstates it. How can the other opinion be explained according to our Mishna? A different version of the inference Rav Chavivi is brought, in which they first quote the debate regarding slaughter and Rav Chavivi raises a question against Rabbi Yochanan from our Mishna. The Mishna brings various combinations of witnesses who become accused of being false witnesses in a theft case where the thief was accused of slaughtering and selling as well. What if one group was made zommemim and not the other? What if all of them? What if only one witness from one of the groups was made a zomem ? Abaye and Rava disagree about whether an eid zomem is disqualified from being a witness from the moment they testified falsely or from the moment they are convicted to be an eid zomem ? The Gemara brings the logic behind each position, but for Rava they bring two different suggestions.