A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When witnesses testify simultaneously (beis achas) about both theft and slaughter, and are then proven zomemim, what is the status of their testimony? The shiur distinguishes between two understandings of beis achas: whether it creates two parallel testimonies ending simultaneously, or one unified testimony subject to "eidus shebatal miktzasah, batal kulah."
This advanced Gemara (גמרא) shiur analyzes Bava Kama 63a, focusing on a complex case of eidim zomemim (conspiring witnesses) who testify about both geneivah (theft) and tevichah (slaughter). The case involves witnesses who testify on Monday that a theft occurred on Sunday and a slaughter occurred on Monday. When these witnesses are subsequently proven zomemim—first regarding the tevichah on Tuesday and then regarding the geneivah on Wednesday—the question arises: what are the financial consequences for both the original thief and the zomemim witnesses? The shiur begins by establishing the basic principle that witnesses only become disqualified (pasul) retroactively from the moment they complete their testimony. This creates a tension: if witnesses testified about both geneivah and tevichah simultaneously (beis achas), and are then proven zomemim on the tevichah first, does this retroactive disqualification invalidate their earlier testimony about the geneivah?
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 63a
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.
