No community start suggestion yet.
What does dover lo chatzi dover mean in the context of testimony that requires multiple pairs of witnesses? The Ramban (רמב"ן) holds it's a revolutionary concept requiring witnesses to testify about a halachic status (ma'aseh niuf, ma'aseh gezeila), not just facts. The Baal HaMaor maintains it's a practical issue: witnesses must see everything visible, making it about complete re'iyat edut rather than halachic conceptualization.
This advanced shiur analyzes the fundamental machloket between the Ramban (רמב"ן) and Baal HaMaor regarding the principle of dover lo chatzi dover (literally "a matter and not half a matter") as it applies to witnesses in cases requiring multiple pairs of testimony. The Gemara (גמרא) in Bava Kamma 70b discusses cases where one pair of witnesses testifies to theft (geneiva) and another to slaughter or sale (tvicha u'mechira), raising the question of whether such split testimony constitutes valid edut. The Baal HaMaor criticizes the Rif's approach that distinguishes based on whether testimony is "nogeya" (relevant to monetary obligation). He argues that according to the Gemara's havamina (initial assumption), testimony about tvicha should be problematic even for the Chachamim who generally reject dover lo chatzi dover, because testimony about tvicha alone carries no halachic significance—it's not edut at all unless combined with knowledge of the theft.
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 70b
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.
