Study Guide Bava Kamma 73 This week's learning is sponsored anonymously in honor of our dear friend and gifted teacher Rabba Yaffa Epstein to pay tribute to the memory of her nephew Yakir Yamin Hexter z”l who was killed in Azza. Today’s learning is dedicated by the Hadran Zoom family in honor of the birthday of our very own “Rabbi Yirmiya”, Becki Goldstein, whose pointed questions keep us on our toes always. Happy birthday! To many more years of curiosity, Becki, with lots of love. Abaye and Rava disagree about whether an eid zomem is disqualified from being a witness when they testified falsely or when convicted to be an eid zomem. To understand why Rava holds they are disqualified only from when they are convicted, the Gemara brings two different explanations. Whaqt is the practical difference between the two? Rav Ashi ruled that we hold according to Abaye and this is one of the six exceptions to the rule where we hold like Abaye when he disagrees with Rava. A difficulty is raised against Abaye's position from our Mishna, but is resolved. The Gemara suggests that the argument between Rava and Abaye is also a subject of debate between two tannaim and brings a braita to prove it. However, this suggestion is rejected as inconclusive as it is possible the source of the debate there was regarding whether one views two different statements made in a very short time frame as if they are one unit (toch k'dei dibur k'dibur damei). If the debate is based on the latter, then Rabbi Yosi contradicts what he says in a sugya in Temura 26a where he rules we do not view two statements made one after the other as one unit. How is this resolved? Rava rules that if witnesses were first contradicted and then others came and made them into eidim zomemim, they are convicted as eidim zomemim as one cannot be convicted on contradictory testimony but it is viewed as a start toward making the witnesses zomemim. Rava proves this from a braita.