No community start suggestion yet.
When witnesses contradict each other about which injury freed a slave—first tooth then eye, or first eye then tooth—how much do the zomemin pay? The Gemara (גמרא) explores whether they pay the full value of an eye or only the difference, and whether payment goes to the eved or to beis din. The discussion hinges on the interplay between hakhasha (contradiction) and hazama (testimonial impeachment).
This shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Bava Kamma 63b dealing with eidim zomemin (impeached witnesses) in the context of injuries that free a slave. The case involves multiple pairs of witnesses testifying about whether a slave's eye or tooth was knocked out first—a critical distinction because the first injury frees the slave, making the master liable for damages to a ben chorin (freeman) for the second injury. Rabbi Zweig begins by laying out the fundamental case: one pair of witnesses testifies that the tooth came first then the eye (shen v'ayin), while another pair testifies the reverse sequence (ayin v'shen). This creates a machlokes with significant financial implications. If the tooth freed the slave, the master owes compensation for the eye injury to a free person (demei ayin). If the eye freed him, the master only owes compensation for a tooth to a freeman (demei shen)—a much smaller amount since a missing tooth doesn't significantly decrease a slave's market value.
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 63b
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.
