A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why can separate witnesses testify to theft and slaughter for the fourfold/fivefold penalty when we have a principle of dover v'lo chatzi dover—no half-testimony? The Gemara (גמרא) explores whether the Mishna follows Rabbi Akiva or the Rabbanan, and analyzes multiple approaches: the Rif's view that testimony good for something else is valid, the RI's approach that witnesses testify to all they can see, and the Nimukei Yosef's reading that each set of witnesses stands independently.
This shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Bava Kamma 59a-59b dealing with the principle of dover v'lo chatzi dover (complete testimony, not half-testimony) as applied to witnesses testifying on the fourfold and fivefold payment obligation for one who steals and slaughters an ox or sheep. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses several cases in the Mishna where witnesses testify separately to different elements of the crime, raising the question of whether such testimony violates the principle that testimony must be complete. The central issue is understanding why the Mishna permits separate witnesses—one set testifying to the theft (geneivah) and another to the slaughter (tevichah)—when the liability for arba'ah vachamishah (fourfold/fivefold payment) requires both elements. The Gemara initially suggests the Mishna cannot follow Rabbi Akiva, who presumably requires unified testimony. The Gemara answers that Rabbi Akiva would agree in this case because the testimony regarding the mechira (sale) stands independently without needing the testimony on 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 Kamma 59a-59b
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.
