ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 72
(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
(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
(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).
In the previous case, if, after ...
(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.
(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.
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
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
(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
(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.
Halachah is - like Abaye, as it is in the other five cases of