A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When witnesses testify that Reuven killed Shimon, then other witnesses contradict them (hakasha), and then a third pair impeaches the first (hazama)—can the first pair be executed? The Gemara (גמרא)'s principle "hakasha kiltas hazama" (contradiction cancels impeachment) is explored through two approaches: does hakasha retroactively void the original verdict, or does it merely prevent the third pair from being believed over the first?
This shiur analyzes Bava Kamma 63a-63b, focusing on the intricate laws of eidus (testimony) and the principles governing hazama (impeachment of witnesses) and hakasha (contradictory testimony). The Gemara (גמרא) begins with a statement from Rav: "Eidim she'huchshu ulfi'soch chuzmu"—witnesses who first faced contradictory testimony (hakasha) and then were impeached (hazama)—such witnesses are not executed. This raises a fundamental question: why not? The basic principle seems straightforward—if hazama normally requires execution, and we have hazama here, why should the prior hakasha matter? The core difficulty is understanding the temporal dimension of witness impeachment. When witnesses testify falsely on Sunday that Reuven killed Shimon, and a verdict is rendered, they committed their transgression on Sunday. If on Tuesday other witnesses create hakasha (contradiction), and on Wednesday a third pair impeaches them through hazama (proving they were elsewhere), we are punishing them on Wednesday for what they did on Sunday. Why should the Tuesday hakasha interfere with Wednesday's hazama? The sin occurred on Sunday—shouldn't that be sufficient grounds for execution?
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 Kamma 63a-63b
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.
