A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why are eidim zomemin listed among the twenty-four avos nezikin when they don't cause actual financial loss? The shiur works through Tosafos (תוספות)'s kashe that if the nizak already paid the money, there's no nezek—yet the eidim are chayav. The resolution hinges on distinguishing money from capital cases: by mamon, it's always kasher zamam because the payment can be reversed, while by misah, once carried out, it's kasher asah and we no longer believe the mazimin.
The shiur opens with a fundamental principle: eidim zomemin are required to pay the nizak even if the nizak already paid the money based on their false testimony. The concept of kasher zamam v'lo kasher asah—that eidim zomemin are only punished for what they intended (zamam) and not for what they actually accomplished (asah)—does not apply to monetary cases. When beis din has already carried out a death sentence, we do not punish the zomemin because it is kasher asah, not zamam. But by money, there is no such thing as kasher asah, because even if the nizak paid, that money can be returned. Since the payment can be undone, it is never a final psak that has been irreversibly executed, so it remains kasher zamam. Tosafos (תוספות)'s central kashe emerges from Rabbi Akiva's braisa listing eidim zomemin among the twenty-four avos nezikin. How can eidim zomemin be classified as a mazik—a cause of damage—when no actual loss has occurred? If the nizak did not yet pay the money, where is the nezek? And even if he did pay, if we say the eidim are patur by kasher asah, then they are only chayav when no loss occurred. The Tosafos is asking: what is the hezek that qualifies eidim zomemin as one of the fundamental categories of damages?
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 4b
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.
