A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When witnesses testify about theft and slaughter together (toch kedei dibur), what happens if they're contradicted on only one charge? The Gemara (גמרא) on Bava Kama 73a seems to say the entire testimony is void (eidus she'batla miktzasah batla kulah), yet an earlier sugya requires paying five-fold for both charges. The shiur reconciles this through the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s principle that hazamah applies from when the full scope of false testimony is revealed—one psak bezdin versus two separate testimonies.
The shiur addresses a fundamental contradiction between two sugyos in Bava Kama regarding witnesses who testify about both theft (geneivah) and slaughter (tevichah). The Mishna discusses a case where witnesses testify that someone stole and slaughtered an animal, making him liable for five-fold payment. The question arises: what happens when these witnesses are themselves contradicted (huzmu) on one part of their testimony? The Gemara (גמרא) on Bava Kama 73a presents a dispute between the Tanna Kama and Rebbe Yosi. According to Rebbe Yosi, when witnesses testify toch kedei dibur (within the time needed to complete a statement) and are contradicted on the tevichah, the entire testimony becomes void. This follows the principle of eidus she'batla miktzasah batla kulah—testimony that is partially voided is entirely voided. Therefore, the defendant pays nothing, and the witnesses themselves pay nothing either, since their entire testimony is considered batel.
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 73a
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.
