A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When does an ed zomem become disqualified—from the time he originally testified (mafrei) or from when he was proven false (mikan ulehaba)? The shiur analyzes the dispute between Abaye and Rava on Bava Kamma 62b, focusing on Rashi (רש"י)'s interpretation that the disqualification stems from lack of valid testimony on "geneivah deketvicha" rather than mechanical monetary consequences. The discussion addresses Torah (תורה) she'bichsov's principle regarding eidim zomemim.
This shiur delivers an advanced analysis of the Gemara (גמרא) in Bava Kamma 62b concerning the laws of eidim zomemim (witnesses who are proven to have testified falsely). The central question is when such witnesses become disqualified: from the time they originally gave their testimony (mafrei hanifsal) or only from the time they were actually proven false through hazamah (mikan ulehaba hanifsal). The shiur begins with detailed analysis of several mishnayos dealing with witnesses who testify about theft (geneivah) and slaughter or sale (tevicha umechira). Rabbi Zweig works through the structure of these cases, particularly focusing on scenarios where there are two pairs of witnesses—one testifying to the theft and another to the subsequent slaughter or sale—and one or both pairs are then proven to be eidim zomemim.
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 62b
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.
