No community start suggestion yet.
If witnesses testify bevas achas about theft and slaughter, and are later impeached only on the slaughter, does the entire testimony collapse? The shiur develops two distinct dinim in tokh kedei dibur: one makes simultaneous testimonies truly simultaneous (preventing retroactive pasul), while Rav Yosef's second din treats them as one hagadas edus—so when half falls, all falls under eidus shebatla miktzasa batla kulah.
This shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Bava Kamma 63a that addresses the case of witnesses who testify bevas achas (simultaneously) regarding both the theft (geneiva) and the slaughter (tevichah) of an animal, and are then proven to be zomemin (impeached) only on one element of their testimony. The Talmudic principle at stake is whether partial impeachment of testimony given simultaneously invalidates the entire testimony or only the impeached portion. The Gemara (גמרא) presents a Tannaitic dispute. The Tana Kama holds that if witnesses testify bevas achas about theft and slaughter, and are later proven zomemin only on the slaughter, the entire testimony is invalidated—eidus shebatla miktzasa batla kulah (testimony partially voided is entirely void). Rabbi Yosei disagrees, distinguishing between testimony given bevas achas versus testimony given bezeh achar zeh (sequentially). According to Rabbi Yosei, if the testimonies are given sequentially, impeachment of the later testimony (slaughter) does not affect the earlier testimony (theft), and the thief must still pay for the theft even though the slaughter testimony is void.
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 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.
