Bava Kamma 74B

ניפוק בעינו; הפיל את שינו ⁠– ניפוק בשינו; סימא את עינו והפיל את שינו ⁠– ניפוק בעינו ושינו!

the slave should go free on account of his eye, and if he knocked out his tooth he should go free on account of his tooth, and if the master both blinded his eye and knocked out his tooth, the slave should go free on account of both his eye and his tooth, without the master having to pay damages for the loss of his tooth.

אמר אביי, עליך אמר קרא: ״תחת עינו״⁠ – ולא תחת עינו ושינו, ״תחת שינו״⁠ – ולא תחת שינו ועינו.

Abaye said to him in response: With regard to your claim, the verse states: “And if a man smites the eye of his slave or the eye of his female slave and destroys it, he should let him go free for his eye’s sake” (Exodus 21:26). The phrase “for his eye’s sake” indicates: But not for the sake of both his eye and his tooth. The same can be inferred from the subsequent verse: “And if he smites out his bondman’s tooth or his bondwoman’s tooth, he should let him go free for his tooth’s sake” (Exodus 21:27). The phrase “for his tooth’s sake” indicates: But not for the sake of both his eye and his tooth.

אמר רב אידי בר אבין, אף אנן נמי תנינא: גנב על פי שנים, וטבח ומכר על פיהם, ונמצאו זוממין ⁠– משלמין לו את הכל.

The Talmud returns to Rava’s opinion that the contradiction of testimony is the start of determining that testimony is conspiring testimony. Rav Idi bar Avin said: We too can learn from the Mishnah that Rava’s claim is correct, as it teaches (72b): If one stole an ox or a sheep, as established based on the testimony of two witnesses, and he subsequently slaughtered the animal or sold it, also based on the testimony of the same witnesses, and these witnesses were found to be conspiring witnesses, these conspiring witnesses must pay everything, i.e., not only the principal amount but also the fourfold or fivefold payment.