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 74
1) RAVA'S SOURCE
(a) Question (Rav Acha brei d'Rav Ika): From which part of
the Beraisa did Rava learn?
1. Suggestion: He learned from the first case (as Rava
(b) Answer (Rav Ashi): Rava learned from the first case of
the Beraisa that the second case also involves 3 pairs of
2. Rejection: The middle witnesses did not uproot the
testimony of the first pair!
i. If not for the Mezimim, we would know that the
slave goes free, but we would not know if he
collects the value of his tooth or eye - we
would have ruled that he gets the lesser (his
tooth, as the first pair testified), since all
agree that Ploni pays at least this much.
1. Two witnesses testified that Ploni knocked out his
slave's tooth, then blinded his eye; Beis Din ruled
(c) Abaye argues - he admits, there are 3 sets of witnesses
in the first case, since it says, 'Behold, the master
says so' (it must be, there are other witnesses that
would make him pay more);
2. Two other witnesses later testified that Ploni
blinded the slave after knocking out his tooth,
contradicting the first pair.
3. The first witnesses were Huzmu - they pay to Ploni
the value of the eye.
i. If contradiction is not the beginning of
Hazamah, they should be exempt, for they were
1. There is no need to say this in the second case -
the slave supports any witnesses that testify that
he goes free!
(d) Question (R. Zeira): We should say, the slave goes free
for the loss of an eye or tooth or both (without other
(e) Answer (Abaye): "(He goes free) in place of his eye" -
not in place of his eye and tooth; "in place of his
tooth" - not in place of his tooth and eye.
2) ADMISSION TO A FINE
(f) Support (for Rava - Rav Idi bar Avin - Mishnah): Two
witnesses testified that Reuven stole and slaughtered;
they were found to be Zomemim - they pay the full fine.
1. Suggestion: The case is, first they testified about
the theft, then about the slaughter; they were Huzmu
regarding the theft, then Huzmu on the slaughter.
(g) Rejection: The case is, they were Huzmu about the
2. Even though Hazamah on the theft is as contradiction
on the slaughter, the witnesses pay the full fine!
3. If contradiction is not the beginning of Hazamah -
they should not pay for the testimony on the
(h) The following Amora'im also argued whether contradiction
is the beginning of Hazamah.
1. Witnesses (on a capital case) that were contradicted
and later Huzmu - R. Yochanan and R. Elazar argued,
1 said they are killed, the other said they are not.
2. It must be that R. Elazar said they are not killed,
for he said that witnesses on a capital case that
were contradicted are lashed.
i. If he held that if they were contradicted and
later Huzmu they would be killed, their false
testimony is punishable by death, they should
be exempt from lashes!
3. Question: Why are they lashed - perhaps they told
the truth, not the others!
ii. Rather, he must hold that they are not killed.
4. Answer (Abaye): The alleged murdered victim (on whom
they testified) walked into Beis Din, exposing their
(a) (Mishnah): Two witnesses testified that Reuven stole, 1
witness testified (or Reuven admitted) that he
slaughtered or sold - he pays double, not 4 or 5.
(b) Also in the following cases he pays double, not 4 or 5:
1. He stole and slaughtered on Shabbos, or to serve
(c) (Gemara) Question: Why must the Mishnah teach that he
does not pay 4 or 5 according to 1 witness - this is
2. He stole from his father, and slaughtered or sold it
after his father died;
3. He stole an animal, made it Hekdesh, then
slaughtered or sold it.
4. R. Shimon says, a thief only pays 4 or 5 for
sacrifices for which one must bring a replacement
(if they become lost or blemished).
(d) Answer: The Mishnah equates according to his own
admission to according to 1 witness: just as by 1
witness, if another witness comes later, they join to
make him pay - also by his own admission, if witnesses
later come, he is liable!
1. This refutes Rav Huna.
(e) (Rav Huna): One who admits to a fine, if witnesses later
come, he is exempt.
(f) Question (Rav Chisda - Beraisa): R. Gamliel once blinded
the eye of his slave Tavi; he was happy, for this would
set Tavi free. He told this to R. Yehoshua.
1. R. Yehoshua: Your words have no effect, for you have
(g) Answer (Rav Huna): His admission did not count, because
it was not in front of Beis Din.
i. Inference: If he had witnesses, Tavi would go
free, even though R. Gamliel already admitted -
this contradicts Rav Huna!
(h) Question: But R. Yehoshua was the Av Beis Din!
(i) Answer: He was not in Beis Din at the time.
(j) Question (Beraisa): Your words have no effect, for you
1. Suggestion: Tana'im argue over Rav Huna's law.
(k) Answer: No, both agree that he is exempt after admission;
i. The first Beraisa said 'Your words have no
effect, for you have no witnesses' - that Tana
holds, witnesses obligate a fine even after
ii. The second Beraisa said 'Your words have no
effect, for you already admitted - that Tana
holds, witnesses do not obligate a fine after
1. The first Tana holds that the admission was not in
Beis Din (so witnesses would help later); the second
Tana holds that the admission was in Beis Din.