Question

In Bava Kamma 73, a dispute is brought between Abaye and Rava as to whether conspiring-witness testimony disqualifies the witness and turns him into a wicked person retroactively, or not. The Talmud there says: “Shall we say that this is a tannaitic dispute? ‘If two people testify that he stole, and they then testify that he slaughtered, and they were shown to be conspiring witnesses regarding the theft—testimony one part of which has been invalidated is entirely invalidated. If they were shown to be conspiring witnesses regarding the slaughter, he pays double payment, and they pay triple payment. Rabbi Yose says: When is this said? In the case of two separate testimonies. But in the case of one testimony, testimony one part of which has been invalidated is entirely invalidated…’ What, is it not that this is exactly their dispute? The Rabbis hold: He is disqualified only from here on, and since they become conspiring witnesses from that moment, it is only regarding the slaughter, about which they were shown to be conspiring witnesses, that they are shown to be conspiring witnesses; regarding the theft, about which they were not shown to be conspiring witnesses, they are not shown to be conspiring witnesses. Rabbi Yose holds: He is disqualified retroactively, and since the moment they testified is the moment they become disqualified, if they were shown to be conspiring witnesses regarding the slaughter, then they were also shown to be conspiring witnesses regarding the theft, since speech delivered within the span of immediate continuation is considered like a single utterance!’”

At first glance, it comes out that we enter a circle here—their testimony regarding the theft is valid, so he is considered a thief, and because he is a thief, the testimony about the slaughter obligates him for another threefold payment, and therefore they can be shown to be conspiring witnesses about having obligated him for the slaughter. But here the Talmud says that the moment you are shown to be a conspiring witness regarding the slaughter, you are considered disqualified also regarding the theft. But if you are disqualified regarding the testimony about the theft and therefore do not obligate him on that, then again the testimony about the slaughter changes nothing, since you do not obligate him for anything for slaughter without theft. But if the testimony about the slaughter is also invalid and he is not considered a conspiring witness regarding it, then again he is not wicked regarding the testimony about the theft, and so he does obligate him. But if he obligates him for the theft, then again he is considered a conspiring witness regarding the slaughter, which makes him disqualified regarding the theft, and so on endlessly.