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


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Bava Kama, 72


QUESTION: Rav Nachman explained to Rava that the reason why he did not give him the same answer the night before as he gave him in the morning was "because I did not eat the meat of an ox." What did Rav Nachman mean by this? ANSWERS:
(a) TOSFOS explains that Rav Nachman was saying that he had been fasting, and thus was unable to concentrate to answer the question appropriately.

(b) RASHI explains that Rav Nachman was saying, "I was not careful to examine the reason of the matter (Ta'amo Shel Davar)." Why is the "Ta'amo Shel Davar" compared to the meat of an ox?

RAV YAKOV EMDEN explains that the meat of an ox refers to fleshy, tasty, and satiating teachings, as we find in Bava Basra (22a), where Rav Ada bar Aba is quoted as telling the students, "Instead of eating the bones in the Yeshivah of Abaye, go and eat the fleshy meat of the Yeshivah of Rava," referring to the satiating style of teaching of Rava.

RAV YESHAYA PIK (Chidushei ha'Shas) says that the meat of an ox refers to finding the reason, the "taste," underlying the concept being studied. The Gemara in Eruvin (21b) cites the verse in Koheles (12:12) that says, "v'Lahag Harbeh, Yegi'as Basar." The Gemara explains that this verse means "all who toil in the words of Torah tastes the taste of meat," which Rashi there explains means that "when a person reviews and delves into the words of Torah, he finds 'taste' (reason) in them." Thus, Rav Nachman here said that since he did not toil enough in the words of Torah, he did not taste the reason behind the concept. (See also TORAS CHAIM.)

OPINIONS: The Gemara quotes Rebbi Yochanan who says, "Yeshnah li'Shechitah mi'Techilah v'Ad Sof" -- the entire act of slaughtering, from beginning to end (and not just the final bit of the Shechitah) constitutes Shechitah. Rav Chavivi asks that if this is what Rebbi Yochanan holds, then he must also hold that "an animal of Chulin slaughtered in the Azarah is not Asur mid'Oraisa" (but only Asur mid'Rabanan), for if he held that it was Asur mid'Oraisa, then a Ganav who slaughters a stolen animal in the Azarah should be *exempt* from Arba'ah v'Chamishah, because from the moment he begins the Shechitah in the Azarah the animal becomes Asur, and when he completes the Shechitah it is no longer the property of the owner.

What exactly is Rav Chavivi's question? Is he asking that Rebbi Yochanan must hold that the *act of slaughtering* an animal in the Azarah is not mid'Oraisa, or that the Isur *Hana'ah* of an animal slaughtered in the Azarah is not mid'Oraisa, or that the Isur *Achilah* of an animal slaughtered in the Azarah is not mid'Oraisa?

(a) RASHI in Pesachim (22a, DH Chulin) writes that the Isur *Hana'ah* of an animal of Chulin that was slaughtered in the Azarah is not mid'Oraisa. Rashi's words there imply that everyone agrees that the Isur Achilah *is* mid'Oraisa, and the only Machlokes involves the Isur Hana'ah.

TOSFOS there questions Rashi's explanation, because the Sugya implies that there is no part of the Isur that is mid'Oraisa.

(b) TOSFOS explains that according to the opinion that says an animal of Chulin slaughtered in the Azarah is not mid'Oraisa, both the Isur Hana'ah and the Isur Achilah are not mid'Oraisa.

(c) RASHI in Kidushin (58a, DH uv'Chulin) writes that this opinion holds that the Isur to slaughter the animal in the Azarah is not mid'Oraisa, nor is the Isur Hana'ah. The words of Rashi here, too, imply that the Isur of Shechitah is not mid'Oraisa.


QUESTION: The Gemara records a Machlokes between Abaye and Rava regarding whether an "Ed Zomem" becomes an invalid witness retroactively (such that we invalidate every testimony that he gave from the time of the testimony for which he was found to be a Zomem), or only from now on (from the time that he is actually made an Ed Zomem). Why does the Gemara say that the subject of the Machlokes is an "Ed Zomem," in the singular, and not "Edim Zomemim," in the plural, like the Mishnah and Gemara always mention? (TOSFOS in Sanhedrin 27a, DH d'As'hidu, and SHITAH MEKUBETZES in Bava Kama 73a)


(a) TOSFOS in Sanhedrin cites RABEINU TAM who answers that Abaye and Rava are discussing a case where only one of the two witnesses was found to be an Ed Zomem. (This is consistent with the view that Tosfos there is discussing, which says that there is no Chidush in the Halachah of Edim Zomemim. Tosfos explains that there is no Chidush in the Halachah of Edim Zomemim only when two witnesses make *one* witness an Ed Zomem, and therefore it is obvious that we believe the two witnesses over the single witness.)

(b) The SHITAH MEKUBETZES (73a) cites RABEINU YESHAYA who answers that the Gemara here simply is not being strict about its wording. Indeed, we find that the verse itself is not strict about its wording, and it says, "v'Ed Ein Bah," when it refers to *two* witnesses.

The TORAS CHAIM answers in the same manner as the Shitah Mekubetzes, and he cites another verse that demonstrates that the singular "Ed" is often used in place of the plural "Edim" and it means two witnesses, as we find in the Parshah of Edim Zomemim itself (Devarim 19:18-19), "v'Hineh *Ed* Sheker...," and, "va'Asisem *Lo* Ka'asher Zamam la'Asos."

Next daf


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