No community start suggestion yet.
Why can witnesses to theft (eidei genevah) be executed through hazamah independently of witnesses to sale (eidei mechira), while by chazakah all three sets of witnesses must be proven false together? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: genevah is the complete din—"techilat chiyuv zeh misa"—while mechira merely reveals what the genevah was. This reframes dover v'lo chatzi dover as requiring not just partial testimony but an incomplete psak din.
The shiur opens with a fundamental difficulty from the Rambam (רמב"ם) (Hilchos Genevah 21:9): If there are two witnesses on theft and two different witnesses on sale, and only the eidei genevah are proven false through hazamah, they are executed—even though their testimony alone would not create a capital obligation. The Yam Shel Shlomo questions this sharply: by chazakah (establishing ownership through three years of possession), all three sets of annual witnesses must be proven false together to impose liability on any of them, following the principle that they are "kat achat l'inyan hazamah." Why should genevah and mechira be different? The Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion introduces a machloket about dover v'lo chatzi dover (partial testimony). The Gemara states that regarding eidei mechira, everyone agrees they are executed through hazamah because they constitute a "dover sheleimo"—complete testimony. The dispute concerns eidei genevah: according to Chizkiyah, who holds there is malkot for genevah, the eidei genevah could claim they came to obligate lashes, thus avoiding execution; according to Rabbi Yochanan, who holds there is no punishment for genevah itself, the eidei genevah must have come for the capital case, so they are executed.
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.
