(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


POINT BY POINT SUMMARY

Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld


Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

Bava Kama 72

1) HOW MUCH MUST HE SLAUGHTER TO BE LIABLE?

(a) (Mishnah): The animal was found to be Treifah...
(b) [Version #1 (R. Chavivi of Chuzna'ah): (From the law that one is liable for Chulin slaughtered in the Mikdash), we learn that only the completion of slaughter is considered slaughter;
1. If the entire act of slaughter is considered slaughter, the animal is forbidden from the start of slaughter, the rest of the slaughter was not on the animal of the original owner!
(c) Objection #1 (Rav Huna brei d'Rava): We can say, he is liable for the beginning of the slaughter!
1. Rejection (Rav Ashi): "And he slaughtered it" connotes the entire slaughter.
(d) Objection #2 (Rav Gamda): The case is, he started the slaughter outside the Mikdash, and completed it in the Mikdash.]
(e) [Version #2 (Reish Lakish) Only the completion of slaughter is considered slaughter;
1. (R. Yochanan): The entire act is considered slaughter.
(f) R. Chavivi of Chuzna'ah: R. Yochanan must hold that the Torah does not forbid Chulin slaughtered in the Mikdash!
72b---------------------------------------72b

1. If it was forbidden mid'Oraisa (why does our Mishnah say he is liable,) the animal is forbidden from the start of slaughter, the rest of the slaughter was not on the animal of the original owner!
(g) Objection #1 (R. Acha brei d'Rava): We can say, he is liable for the beginning of the slaughter!
1. Rejection (Rav Ashi): "And he slaughtered it" connotes the entire slaughter.
(h) Objection #2 (Rav Gamda): The case is, he started the slaughter outside the Mikdash, and completed it in the Mikdash.
2) LIABILITY OF EDIM ZOMEMIM
(a) (Mishnah): Two witnesses testified that Reuven stole and slaughtered; they were found to be Zomemim (they were not where they claimed to have seen the testimony) - they pay the full fine (4 or 5).
(b) Two witnesses testified that Reuven stole, 2 others testified that he slaughtered, both pairs were Huzmu (found to be Zomemim) - the first pair pays double payment for the animal, the second pair pays the remaining (2 or) 3;
1. If only the second pair was Huzam - Reuven pays double, the second pair pays (2 or) 3;
2. If only 1 witness was Huzam - if he is from the second pair, the testimony on the slaughter is void;
3. If he is from the first pair, the whole testimony is void - if he did not steal the animal, he is allowed to slaughter it!
Next daf

Index


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,
daf@shemayisrael.co.il