A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can witnesses who testified about a theft become disqualified when the defendant later admits he stole in their presence? The Gemara (גמרא) establishes that eidim sheyesh lahem uchlasah—witnesses who cannot be punished if proven false—may be invalid. The shiur explores when this disqualification applies, analyzing Sumchus versus the Chachamim, payment obligations, and whether post-testimony admissions invalidate witnesses retroactively.
The shiur analyzes Bava Kamma 65b, focusing on a complex case involving multiple sets of witnesses testifying about theft. The case involves Reuven (the thief), Shimon (the victim), and two pairs of witnesses: Levi and Yehuda (first witnesses), and Yissachar and Zevulun (second witnesses). The central question is whether witnesses can be disqualified under the principle of eidim sheyesh lahem uchlasah—witnesses who cannot be punished if proven to be eidim zomemin (conspiring witnesses). The scenario unfolds when the first pair of witnesses testifies that Reuven stole, but the defendant claims he did not steal in front of them, but rather in front of Yissachar and Zevulun. When Yissachar and Zevulun come forward and confirm the theft, the question arises: are they valid witnesses? According to the principle of eidim sheyesh lahem uchlasah, if these witnesses were to be proven false through hazamah, they could not be made to pay the defendant because he has already admitted to stealing in their presence. Since their false testimony would have no negative consequences for them, their testimony might be invalid from the outset.
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 65b
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.
