A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When do conspiring witnesses become disqualified—from the time they testified falsely, or from when they are proven false? Abaye holds the disqualification is retroactive to when they lied (mafreia hunifsul), while Rava argues it takes effect only from the court's ruling (mikan ulehaba). The shiur analyzes whether disqualification stems from the witnesses being proven liars or from a formal legal status of pasul eidus.
This shiur presents an in-depth analysis of the fundamental dispute between Abaye and Rava regarding when eidim zomemim (conspiring witnesses) become disqualified. The central question: if witnesses testify falsely on February 1st and are exposed as zomemim on March 1st, from when are they pasul—retroactively from February 1st, or only going forward from March 1st? Abaye holds eidim zomemim l'mafreia hunifsul—they are retroactively disqualified from the time they gave false testimony. According to this view, any testimony or document they signed between February 1st and March 1st would be invalidated. Rava, however, argues they are only disqualified mikan ulehaba (from now forward). Rava's position has two possible explanations: either (1) we cannot be certain which set of witnesses is lying (it's a chiddush to believe the second pair), so the disqualification only takes effect when the court rules, or (2) even though they are technically pasul from earlier, we apply a takanas chachamim (rabbinic enactment) to protect purchasers (tikun lakuchos) who relied on these witnesses in good faith.
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 72b
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.
