A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When witnesses are discredited through hazama (contradictory testimony about their whereabouts), when do they become disqualified—from the time of the event they testified about, or only from when they gave testimony? The shiur explores Abaye's position of "lemafre'a hunifsal" (retroactively disqualified) versus Rava's "mikahal haba" (from now forward), arguing that eid zomemin establishes a din of disqualification, not a determination that the witnesses are proven liars.
This shiur analyzes the fundamental machloket between Abaye and Rava regarding when witnesses who are proven eid zomemin become disqualified from giving testimony. The case involves witnesses who testify on the 10th of Nisan about a theft that occurred on the 1st of Nisan, and are then discredited (huzmu) on the 16th of Nisan. Abaye holds lemafre'a hunifsal—they are disqualified retroactively from the 10th of Nisan when they first testified. Rava holds mikahal haba hunifsal—they are only disqualified from the 16th onward, when the hazama occurred. The Rashba brings a proof from the Yerushalmi that according to Abaye, the witnesses are not disqualified from the 1st of Nisan (the date of the alleged theft), but only from the 10th (when they testified). This seems obvious—how could they be disqualified from a time before they testified? Yet the Rashba needs a source to establish this point, suggesting a deeper principle at work.
Looking for the full summary?
Full access is available to members of the TUF Alumni Association or the Yam Hagadol Foundation.
Already a member? Let the admin know!
Bava Kama 72b
Looking for the full transcript?
Full access is available to members of the TUF Alumni Association or the Yam Hagadol Foundation.
Already a member? Let the admin know!
Dedicate a Shiur in Gemara
L'ilui nishmas a loved one. In honor of a simcha or yahrzeit. As a zechus for a refuah sheleimah. Your dedication helps carry Rabbi Zweig's Torah to learners around the world.
When an animal damages crops, the Torah prescribes a unique payment formula based on multiplying the damaged area by sixty. Does this formula redefine the actual loss, or does it merely create a payment mechanism that still acknowledges the full damage sustained? The Gemara explores whether someone who ate in doubt should pay the higher-quality amount, examining how the principle of motzi me-chaveiro alav haraya applies when payments fall within the range of actual loss.
What makes testimony valid when different witnesses testify to different parts of the same event? The Gemara debates whether the principle of "davar v'lo chatzi davar" (complete testimony, not partial) disqualifies witnesses who testify separately to theft and slaughter. Rashi's approach reveals that the issue is not merely combining elements, but whether each witness's statement is independently meaningful.
Why is a ganav who sells a stolen animal on Shabbos exempt from the fourfold/fivefold payment? The shiur analyzes whether this exemption stems from kam lei b'derabbah or from the absence of a valid mechira. The Rashba's principle that matana resembles mechira when it is "nishtarish b'chet" is explored, along with the Rambam's position on hekdesh and the distinction between giving to bedek habayis versus mizbe'ach.
When a ganav shechts a stolen animal l'avodah zarah, why isn't he patur from payment since it's already isur hana'ah? The shiur explores the fundamental machloket Rashi-Tosafot on whether the isur derives from the act of shechita or from the din shechita itself. The Gemara's application of davar garem be'mamon ke'mamon domi extends the analysis to when borrowed animals become niskal.
