Answer: Since the Seifa discusses when the second pair switched the order of events and were Mazim the first pair, also the Reisha.

(Seifa): If two said 'we testify that Ploni knocked out his slave's tooth, then blinded his eye. Behold, the slave says so', and they were Huzmu, they pay the value of his eye to Ploni.

Question: What is the case?

Suggestion: The latter witnesses (the Mazimim) do not testify that Ploni hurt his slave.

Rejection: The first witnesses tried to improperly make the slave go free. They should pay the master his full value!

Answer: Rather, the Mazimim admit that Ploni (at a different time) knocked out his slave's tooth and blinded his eye, but in the reverse order.

Question: (In both clauses of the Beraisa), do the Mazimim say that Ploni struck the slave before or after the first witnesses testified?

If they say that it was later, the first witnesses tried to make the slave go free without reason. They should pay to Ploni the slave's full value!

Answer: Rather, they say that he hit him before the first pair testified.

Question: Still, if the first pair testified before Beis Din ruled that the slave goes free, they should pay Ploni his full value, for Ploni was not obligated to free him (he could have admitted in Beis Din that he struck his slave)!

Answer: The case is, the first pair testified after (other witnesses testified in a Beis Din that) ruled that the slave goes free.

Question (Rav Acha brei d'Rav Ika): From which part of the Beraisa did Rava learn?

Suggestion: He learned from the Reisha (like he explained above).

Rejection: The middle witnesses did not uproot the testimony of the first pair!

If not for the Mazimim, we would know that the slave goes free, but we would not know if he collects the value of his tooth or eye. We would have ruled that he gets the lesser (his tooth, like the first pair testified), since all agree that Ploni pays at least this much.

Answer (Rav Ashi): Rava learned from the Reisha that also the Seifa involves three pairs of witnesses.

Two witnesses testified that Ploni knocked out his slave's tooth, then blinded his eye. Beis Din ruled about this.

Two other witnesses later testified that Ploni blinded the slave after knocking out his tooth, contradicting the first pair.

The first witnesses were Huzmu. They pay to Ploni the value of the eye.

If contradiction were not the beginning of Hazamah, they should be exempt, for they were already contradicted!

Abaye argues. He agrees that there are three sets of witnesses in the first case, since it says 'behold, the master says so' (it must be, there are other witnesses that would make him pay more);

We need not say so in the Seifa. The slave supports any witnesses who testify that he goes free!

Question (R. Zeira): We should say that the slave goes free for the loss of an eye or tooth or both (without other compensation)!

Answer (Abaye): "(He goes free) in place of his eye" - not in place of his eye and tooth; "in place of his tooth" - not in place of his tooth and eye.

Support (for Rava - Rav Idi bar Avin - Mishnah): If two witnesses testified that Reuven stole and slaughtered, and they were found to be Zomemim, they pay the full fine.

Suggestion: The case is, first they testified about the theft, then about the slaughter. They were Huzmu about the theft, and then Huzmu about the slaughter.

Even though Hazamah about the theft is like contradiction about the slaughter, the witnesses pay the full fine!

If contradiction were not the beginning of Hazamah, they would not pay for the testimony about the slaughter!

Rejection: The case is, they were Huzmu about the slaughter first.

Also the following Amora'im argue about whether contradiction is the beginning of Hazamah.

R. Yochanan and R. Elazar argued about witnesses (in a capital case) who were contradicted and later Huzmu. One said they are killed, and the other said they are not.

Inference: It must be that R. Elazar said they are not killed, for he said that witnesses about a capital case that were contradicted are lashed.

If he held that if they were contradicted and later Huzmu they would be killed, their false testimony is punishable by death. They should be exempt from lashes!

Rather, he must hold that they are not killed.

Question: Why are they lashed? Perhaps they told the truth, and the others lied!

Answer (Abaye): They testified that Ploni was murdered, and Ploni walked into Beis Din, exposing their lie.

(Mishnah): If two witnesses testified that Reuven stole, and we know that he slaughtered or sold from one witness or from Reuven's admission, he pays Kefel, but not four or five.

Also in the following cases he pays Kefel, but not four or five:

He stole and slaughtered on Shabbos, or to serve idolatry;

He stole from his father, and slaughtered or sold it after his father died;

He stole an animal, made it Hekdesh, then slaughtered or sold it.

R. Shimon says, a thief pays four or five only for a Korban with Achrayus (one must bring a replacement if it becomes lost or blemished).

(Gemara) Question: Why must the Mishnah teach that he does not pay four or five according to one witness? This is obvious!

Answer: The Mishnah equates according to his own admission and according to one witness. When one witness testified, if another witness comes later, they join to make him pay. Similarly, when he admitted, if witnesses later come, he is liable!

This refutes Rav Huna.

(Rav Huna): If one admitted to a fine, and witnesses came later, he is exempt.

Question (Rav Chisda - Beraisa #1): Once, R. Gamliel blinded the eye of his slave Tavi. He was happy, for this would set Tavi free. He told this to R. Yehoshua.

R. Yehoshua: Your words have no effect, for you have no witnesses.

Inference: If he had witnesses, Tavi would go free, even though R. Gamliel already admitted. This contradicts Rav Huna!

Answer #1 (Rav Huna): His admission did not count, because it was not in front of Beis Din.

Objection: R. Yehoshua was the Av Beis Din!