No community start suggestion yet.
If witnesses testify on both theft (geneiva) and slaughter/sale (tvicha mechira) and are later impeached (hazamah), when are they liable? The Gemara (גמרא) asks: if you impeach them first on the geneiva, they're pasul from that time—so how can they pay for tvicha? And if on tvicha first, once you impeach them on geneiva afterward, they're retroactively pasul—again, how do they pay? The shiur resolves this through the Gemara's answer that they testified b'vas achas (as one eidus), and explores the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s unique reading that this means a single psak bezdin—not necessarily toch kedei dibur—making their entire testimony one unified act whose hazamah occurs only at its conclusion.
This shiur presents an intricate analysis of Bava Kamma 73a, focusing on the law of eidim zomemim (impeached witnesses) in the context of paying arba v'chamisha (fourfold/fivefold restitution for stolen animals that are slaughtered or sold). The Mishna states that if two witnesses testify that someone stole and slaughtered or sold an ox or sheep, and the witnesses are later impeached, they must pay the full amount (dalet hei). The Gemara (גמרא) immediately raises a difficulty based on the principle that eid zomem l'mafrei hu nifsal—an impeached witness is disqualified retroactively from the time of the original testimony. The Gemara's first question is: if the witnesses were impeached on the geneiva (theft) first, they become pasul from that moment. This means that when they later testified about the tvicha mechira (slaughter/sale), they were already disqualified witnesses (eidim psulim). Since their testimony on tvicha was invalid, how can they possibly be liable to pay for it? The Gemara then considers the reverse scenario: what if they were impeached on the tvicha mechira first? In that case, they would initially be liable for the tvicha. But once they are subsequently impeached on the geneiva, we now know retroactively that they were pasul from the time of the geneiva testimony. This should retroactively invalidate the tvicha testimony as well, because ein geneiva ein tvicha mechira—without theft, there is no liability for slaughter or sale. So again, why should they have to pay?
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 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.
