A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When a thief confesses before witnesses testify that he stole, are those witnesses disqualified because they cannot be punished as zomemim (Tosafos (תוספות)/Rosh), or because their testimony lacks independent credibility (Rashi (רש"י))? This chakira in the din of eidim she'al pi yaducha chasav resolves multiple difficulties in the Gemara (גמרא) and Rishonim and distinguishes between monetary cases and capital cases.
The shiur analyzes Bava Kamma 65b, which discusses the case of a thief who confesses to stealing an animal in front of certain witnesses, and then those same witnesses come to testify. The Gemara (גמרא) rules that according to the chachamim, this is considered "eidim she'al pi yaducha chasav" (witnesses who testify based on your own admission), and the thief is exempt from the fourfold or fivefold payment (kefel or dalet v'hey). The shiur presents two fundamentally different approaches to understanding why such witnesses are disqualified. The straightforward reading of the Gemara (attributed to Shmuel and Tosafos (תוספות)/Rosh) is that these witnesses cannot be punished if they are later proven to be zomemim (conspiring witnesses). Since the defendant already confessed to the truth of what they're saying—that he stole in Miami—even if we later prove the witnesses were in New York at the time and couldn't have seen the theft, the defendant would still owe the original theft payment based on his confession. Therefore, the witnesses could never be punished, and witnesses who cannot be punished are not valid eidim.
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 65b
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.
