No community start suggestion yet.
What is the scope of modeh b'knas v'achar kach ba'u edim—confession in knas followed by witnesses—that exempts from knas? The Gemara (גמרא) explores whether the exemption applies only when the confession creates a monetary obligation (keren), or even when the modeh knows knas is exempt and no obligation results. Rav and Shmuel debate whether besusah d'edim—confession under pressure of imminent witnesses—nullifies the hodaah, and what constitutes legitimate witness-induced pressure.
This shiur analyzes the fundamental principles of modeh b'knas v'achar kach ba'u edim (confession in knas followed by witnesses) as discussed in Bava Kamma 65a. The Gemara (גמרא) presents a dispute between Rav and Shmuel: Rav holds that one who confesses to knas and then witnesses come is exempt (patur), while Shmuel holds he is liable (chayav). The Gemara clarifies that this dispute relates to two distinct pesukim—"ki yimatzei" (if found) and "asher yarshi'un Elokim" (whom the judges convict)—each teaching a different dimension of the exemption principle. Rabbi Zweig probes the underlying mechanics of this exemption. The discussion focuses on whether the hodaah (confession) must create an actual monetary obligation to be considered valid, or whether even a hodaah that the modeh knows will not create liability still qualifies as hodaah. Rashi (רש"י)'s formulation—"hodaah gemurah" (complete confession)—becomes central: does hodaah gemurah mean the beis din actually obligates him based on his words, thereby giving the hodaah halachic force? Or does it mean we trust his credibility because he is obligating himself, making his subsequent hodaah about knas reliable?
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 65a
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.
