No community start suggestion yet.
When do witnesses become pasul—at the moment of false testimony or only when exposed through hazamah? The shiur works through a complex Gemara (גמרא) addressing whether eidim zomemim are disqualified retroactively or prospectively, challenging the logic that a chiddush (novel Torah (תורה) rule) would create different standards for two-against-two versus two-against-one cases. Rashi (רש"י)'s unique reading that "ein genevah ein tevichah" means a conceptual hakchasha rather than mere absence of chiyuv adds another layer.
This shiur analyzes Bava Kamma 62b-63a, focusing on the intricate halachos of eidim zomemim (conspiring witnesses) and the conceptual underpinnings of when witnesses become pasul (disqualified). The Gemara (גמרא) discusses multiple cases where pairs of witnesses testify about theft and slaughter, and subsequent pairs either contradict or are themselves discredited through hazamah. The shiur begins by examining Rashi (רש"י)'s approach to several difficult passages. One particularly challenging Rashi addresses the principle of "ein genevah ein tevichah"—if there is no theft, there is no liability for slaughter. The straightforward reading would suggest that if the chiyuv (obligation) for theft is nullified, the chiyuv for slaughter/sale automatically falls away. However, Rashi appears to take a different approach, suggesting that the issue is one of hakchasha (contradiction)—that testimony about slaughter of stolen property becomes meaningless if we establish there was no theft to begin with. This represents not merely the absence of a chiyuv, but a conceptual impossibility: testimony that someone slaughtered stolen property cannot stand if the property was never stolen.
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 62b-63a
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.
