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


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Bava Kama 73

BAVA KAMA 73 (21 Tishrei, Hoshana Raba) - dedicated by Gedalyah Jawitz of Wantagh, N.Y., honoring the Yahrtzeit of his father, Yehuda ben Simcha Volf Jawitz.


(a) We learned in our Mishnah that if two witnesses testified that someone stole a sheep or a cow and Shechted or sold it, and then become Zomemin, they are obligated to pay both Kefel and Daled ve'Hey.
On what grounds do we initially ask from this Mishnah on Abaye (who holds 'Eid Zomem Lemafre'a Hu Nifsal')?

(b) We try to answer that the Tana speaks when they were first made Zomemin on the Tevichah.
Why is this answer unsatisfactory?

(c) So how do we establish our Mishnah, to conform with Abaye?

(d) Does it matter in which order the Hazamah took place?

2) What does the Tana Kama of the Beraisa say about a pair of witnesses who testified that someone stole an animal and Shechted or stole it and who then became Zomemin on the testimony ...
  1. ... of the theft?
  2. ... of the Tevichah or the Mechirah?
(a) Rebbi Yossi makes a distinction between two pairs of witnesses and one pair of witnesses. In the latter case, he says 'Eidus she'Batlah Miktzasah, Batlah Kulah'. We refute the suggestion that Rebbi Yossi means literally two pairs of witnesses and one pair.
If he did, how would we present the case involving one pair of witnesses?

(b) On what grounds do we refute this suggestion?

(c) Then what is the case of ...

  1. ... 'Sh'tei Idiyos'?
  2. ... 'Eidus Achas'?
(d) Assuming that both Tana'im hold of the principle 'Toch K'dei Dibur ke'Dibur Dami', what do we suggest is the basis of their Machlokes? Why do the Rabbanan disagree with Rebbi Yossi?
(a) We conclude that both Tana'im may well hold 'Eid Zomem Lemafre'a Nifsal'.
In that case, why do the Rabbanan not negate the testimony on the Geneivah which was said 'Toch K'dei Dibur' prior to that of the Tevichah or the Mechirah?

(b) What do we mean when, to explain Rebbi Yossi, we say 'Ki Iszamu a'Tevichah, *Iszamu* Nami a'Geneivah'?

Answers to questions



(a) Rebbi Meir says in the Mishnah in Temurah 'Harei Zu Temuras Olah, Temuras Shelamim, Harei Zu Temuras Olah'.
Why is that?

(b) If that is what he meant, Rebbi Yossi says, then, since it is impossible for the two to take effect simultaneously, his words stand.
What does he mean by ...

  1. ... 'if that is what he meant?
  2. ... 'his words stand'?
(c) If he changed his mind however, Rebbi Yossi continues, then it is a Temuras Olah (like Rebbi Meir), which seems rather obvious.
So how does Rav Papa establish Rebbi Yossi? What is the Chidush?

(d) But did we not just conclude that Rebbi Yossi holds 'Toch K'dei Dibur k'Dibur Dami'?

6) Rava says that if witnesses whose testimony a second pair of witnesses countered (Hakchashah), and whom a third pair of witnesses then declared Zomemin, they are considered Zomemin (and are even put to death if that is what they attempted to achieve with their testimony).
Why is that? Why does Rava not consider their testimony invalid from the time of the Hakchashah?


(a) The Beraisa rules that if witnesses testify that a man blinded his Eved and then knocked out his tooth (which pleases the master), and are then declared Zomemin, they must pay the value of the eye to the Eved. Besides the fact that if there was only one pair of witnesses, then, once the Eved goes free, why should the witnesses pay for the eye?, what other problem do we have with this ruling?

(b) What third problem do we have with the Beraisa the way it stands?

(c) How does Rava therefore establish the Beraisa? What do each pair of witnesses say?

(d) What are the ramifications of the discrepancy between the two pairs of witnesses? How does this answer the three Kashyos that we just posed?

(a) How does Rava now attempt to prove his opinion regarding 'Hakchashah Techilas Hazamah' from here?

(b) Abaye refutes Rava's proof. According to him, the Tana speaks when no witnesses testified prior to the Zomemin.
Then how does he establish the Beraisa, in order to resolve the three problems?

(c) What is the problem, according to Abaye, with obligating the Zomemin to pay the Eved the value of his eye?

Answers to questions

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,