Amud 73a

תוס' ד"ה משום

Because of the loss to the buyers - משום פסידא דלקוחות

We cannot say that if there are only the signatures of the ע"ז, we are not concerned for פסידא דלקוחות, for the גמרא should have utilized that case as an איכא בינייהו.

[View / Print]

תוס' ד"ה דאסהידו

That two testified against one, and two against one - דאסהידו ביה תרי בחד ותרי בחד

Summary:
The two ע"ז are not supporting each other as to the time and place of their testimony.

[View / Print]

תוס' ד"ה אי

Perhaps also that they disqualified them as robbers - אי נמי דפסלינהו בגזלנותא

Summary:
There is no פסידא דלקוחות by the פסול of גזלנותא, provided that the פסול in בי"ד took place first. The ruling of מכאן ולהבא is only regarding cases where there can be פסידא דלקוחות, however in all other matters the rule is למפרע הוא נפסל.

[View / Print]

תוס' ד"ה והוזמו

And they were discredited for the stealing, and they were again discredited for the slaughtering - והוזמו על הגניבה וחזרו והוזמו על הטביחה

Summary:
There can be a הזמה after a הכחשה if we maintain הכחשה תחילת הזמה היא.

[View / Print]

תוס' ד"ה שהעידו

They testified at the same time and were discredited - שהעידו בבת אחת והוזמו

Summary:
If we wish to establish the משנה of 'ד' וה according to both rulings of אביי (that ע"ז למפרע הוא נפסל and הכחשה לאו תחילת הזמה) it will be necessary to say that both the הגדה and the הזמה were (each respectively) בבת אחת. The גמרא (generally) replies to the question posed without considering other issues.

[View / Print]