Previous daf

1)

(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'ha'Shochet Chulin ba'Azarah, Meshalem Arba'ah va'Chamishah'. Rav Chavivi from Chuzna'a attempts to prove from here that 'Einah li'Shechitah Ela li'be'Sof' (the Halachic Shechitah is confined to the last part of the Shechitah [which kills the animal]) - because otherwise, the moment the Ganav has made the first cut, the animal would be Asur be'Hana'ah, and would no longer belong to the owner (in which case he would not be Chayav Daled ve'Hey).

(b) Rav Huna B'rei de'Rava refutes this proof on the grounds that even assuming that 'Yeshnah li'Shechitah mi'Techilah ve'Ad Sof' (the Shechitah incorporates the entire act), the Ganav would be Chayav Daled ve'Hey for the initial cut. Rav Ashi rejects this answer - on the basis of the Pasuk "u'Teva*cho*" from which we extrapolate ' ... Kulo be'Isuro'' (the entire Shechitah must be be'Isur in order to be Chayav Daled ve'Hey.

(c) Rav Gamda in the name of Rava reconciles our Mishnah with the opinion that holds 'Yeshnah li'Shechitah mi'Techilah ve'Ad Sof' - by establishing the Mishnah when the Ganav performed up to half the Shechitah outside the Azarah before taking the animal into the Azarah and completing the Shechitah (meaning the majority of the two pipes), in which case, he becomes Chayav Daled ve'Hey and renders the animal forbidden, simultaneously.

(a) Others cite Rav Gamada in the name of Rava in connection with the following Machlokes. 'Resh Lakish Amar Rebbi Levi Saba Einah li'Shechitah Ela li'be'Sof' - 've'Rebbi Yochanan Amar Yeshnah li'Sechirus mi'Techilah ve'Ad Sof'.

(b) Rav Rav Chavivi from Chuzna'a attempt to prove from here that Rebbi Yochanan holds 'Chulin she'Nishchatah ba'Azarah cannot be d'Oraysa - because if it were, why would our Tana obligate the Ganav to pay Daled ve'Hey for Shechting the animal in the Azarah, seeing as the moment he has made the first cut, the animal becomes Asur be'Hana'ah, and he is no longer Shechting the owner's animal (as we explained earlier).

(c) Rav Acha B'rei de'Rava tries to answer this Kashya - by obligating the Ganav Daled ve'Hey for the initial cut.

(d) Rav Ashi raises the same objection as he raised in the first Lashon ("u'Tevacho" 'Kulei be'Isura'). Rav Gamda in the name of Rava reconciles our Mishnah with Rebbi Yochanan - by establishing the Mishnah when the Ganav performed up to half the Shechitah outside the Azarah ... (as we explained earlier).

3)

(a) If two witnesses testify that someone stole a sheep or a cow and Shechted or sold it, and they both become Zomemin - they have to pay the Keren, the Kefel and the Daled ve'Hey (amounting to four or five-fold).

(b) If two witnesses testify that someone stole the animal and two other witnesses, that he Shechted or sold it, then if they both become Zomemin - the first set pays Kefel, and the second set, Daled ve'Hey.

(c) In the latter case ...

1. ... if only the second set become Zomemin - then the Ganav pays Kefel, and the Zomemin, Daled ve'Hey.
2. ... if one of the second set become Zomemin - then the Ganav pays Kefel, and the second testimony is Bateil.
3. ... if one of the first set become Zomemin - then the entire testimony is Bateil.

(d) In the case where one of the second set become Zomemin, they do not pay Daled ve'Hey - because the Dinim of Zomemin only apply when *both* witnesses become Zomemin, not only one of them.

1. ... one of the first set becomes a Zomem, the second set of witnesses become Zomemin too - they do not pay Daled ve'Hey, due to the fact that their testimony became annulled (not through Hazamah, but) through the fact that the theft was not proven, and 'if there was no theft, then there was no Tevichah or Mechirah either'.
2. ... both of the witnesses of the first set became Zomemin, the second set of witnesses become Zomemin, too - then they are certainly exempt from Daled ve'Hey.

(a) According to Abaye, an Eid Zomem becomes Pasul retroactively - meaning that any other testimony that he testified between the false testimony and the time that he is declared an Eid Zomem is void.

(b) Abaye learns this from the Pasuk "Al Ta'shes Yadcha Rasha", disqualifying a Rasha from testifying, and - seeing as he was a Rasha from the moment that he testified this testimony, all his subsequent testimonies are automatically invalid.

(c) Rava's reason for saying that he is only Pasul from the time that he becomes a Zomem is - due to the fact that Eid Zomem is a Chidush in the first place and we follow the principle 'Ein Lecha Bo Ela Chidusho' (we take the Chidush at its minimum, without extending it further).

(d) What makes Eid Zomem a Chidush is - the fact that we believe the word of the second set of witnesses against the word of the first.

(a) In the second Lashon, Rava agrees with Abaye in principle. Nevertheless, the Rabbanan validate all his testimonies up to the time that he became an Eid Zomem - to spare the losses of people who may in the interim, have purchased fields on which the Eid Zomem signed, and who now stand to lose them.

(b) One difference between the two Leshonos will be in a case where each of the two witnesses was declared a Zomem by two witnesses - removing the aspect of Chidush. Consequently, according to the first Lashon, the witnesses will indeed be Pasul retroactively; whereas according to the second Lashon, they will still be Pasul only from now on, in order to safeguard the interests of the purchasers.

(c) The second difference between the two Leshonos is - there were the second set of witnesses did not declare the first set Zomemin, but testified that they were Pasul because they had stolen. Here too, it would not be a Chidush to believe them (since the second set could not possibly be believed to vindicate themselves).

(d) Rebbi Yirmiyah mi'Difti rules like Rava, Rav Ashi, like Abaye.
The Halachah is - like Abaye, as it is in the other five cases of 'Y.(A).L.K.G.M'.