On Bava Kama 74A, the Gemara ends up changing the case to a sitution where there was an earlier court case, and the master ran away. Rashi Dibbur HaMaschil KeSheAmad BeDin spells out the entire case. My question is, in this new Pshat, it seems to have nothing to do with the case we were originally discussing. The Gemara had said that the case is where the Mazimin testified that the Chavala of the slave occurred prior to the time that the Zomemin claimed.
This new Pshat does not mention this and seems to ignore this earlier qualification. How can this be resolved?
Jeremy Caplan, Edison, NJ USA
Dear Jeremy,
Amad b'Din is not a new explanation. It is a neccesary addition to Abaye's explanation of Afchinhu.
There are 2 groups of Eidim in the case . One says eye-tooth and one says tooth-eye. They both refer to an earlier Amad b'Din - according to the Gemara this is the only way to establish that the slave is already freed. But the Gemara retains the original part of the story that the Mazimim speak of it happening before the Zomimim. Otherwise the Zomimim are speaking about a slave, not an already free man (see Yam Shel Shelomo 22). Rashi doesn't have to repeat what he alredy explained, only the new part.
All the best,
Reuven Weiner