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 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
1) FROM WHEN ARE ZOMEMIM WITNESSES DISQUALIFIED?
(a) (Abaye): Shimon testified and was Huzam - all testimony
he gave or will give after his fabricated testimony are
(b) (Rava): Only testimony he gives after he was Huzam is
1. Abaye says he is disqualified retroactively - from
when he testified, he is evil - "Do not put...an
evil one (to be a) witness";
(c) (R. Yirmeyah mi'Difti): Rav Papa ruled a case as Rava.
2. [Version #1: Rava says he is disqualified from now
and onwards - because the law of Edim Zomemim is a
i. Why should we believe the latter witnesses
(Mezimim), who say that the first pair are
Zomemim - perhaps the latter pair are lying!
3. [Version #2: Rava agrees that the Torah disqualifies
ii. The Torah's Chidush is that in this trial (and
surely, for future testimonies) we say that the
first pair are liars - we have no source to
consider them liars before this!]
i. Chachamim enacted that he is only disqualified
from now and onwards to prevent a loss to
buyers (who signed these witnesses on their
documents or purchase).]
4. Question: Practically, what is the difference
between the 2 versions?
5. Answer #1: Each witness was Huzam by a different
pair of witnesses (so it is no Chidush to believe
the Mezimim, each pair of Mezimim is contradicted by
only 1 witness).
6. Answer #2: The witnesses that testified were not
Huzmu, rather other witnesses said that these
witnesses stole (and are therefore invalid
witnesses) before they testified.
i. According to both answers, it is no Chidush to
believe the latter witnesses - according to
Version #1, the first witnesses are
ii. According to Version #2, they are not
disqualified retroactively, because of the loss
(d) (Rav Ashi): The law is as Abaye.
(e) The law is as Abaye against Rava in 6 places, whose
acronym is YA'AL K'GAM:
1. Yud - despair without knowledge;
(f) (Mishnah): Two witnesses testified that Reuven stole and
slaughtered; they were found to be Zomemim - they pay the
2. Ayin - Edim Zomemim are disqualified retroactively;
3. Lamed - (Rashi - a post (to permit carrying in an
alley); Tosfos - days of childbirth on which blood
is not seen; or, inevitable, undesired benefit from
4. Kuf - Kidushin in which the man (Tosfos - becomes)
forbidden to have relations with the woman;
5. Gimel - showing desire to nullify a Get;
6. Mem - a wanton sinner who sins to fulfill his
1. Suggestion: The case is, first they testified about
the theft, then about the slaughter; they were Huzmu
(found to be Zomemim) regarding the (testimony on
the) theft, then Huzmu on the slaughter.
(g) Suggestion: Tana'im argue as Abaye and Rava.
2. Question (against Abaye): If Zomemim witnesses are
disqualified retroactively - since they were Huzmu
on the theft, it turns out that they were
disqualified when they testified on the slaughter,
they should not pay that part of the fine!
3. Answer #1: The case is, they were Huzmu on the
4. Objection: Still, when they are Huzmu on the theft,
we see retroactively that they were disqualified
when they testified on the slaughter!
5. Answer #2: The case is, they testified on the theft
and slaughter at the same time.
(h) (Beraisa): Two witnesses testified that Reuven stole, and
also that he slaughtered; they were Huzmu regarding the
theft - testimony which is partially nullified is totally
1. If they were Huzmu regarding the slaughter - Reuven
pays double, the witnesses pay (2 or) 3;
(i) Question: What does he mean by 1 or 2 testimonies?
2. R. Yosi says, this is the law by 2 testimonies - but
by 1 testimony, testimony which is partially
nullified is totally nullified (Reuven is exempt).
1. Suggestion: Two testimonies is when a different pair
testified about the slaughter, 1 testimony is when
the same pair of witnesses testified at 2 different
(j) Answer: Rather, 2 testimonies means 1 pair that testified
as 2 testimonies, one after the other; 1 testimony is
when they testified about the theft and slaughter
2. Rejection: If so, by 1 testimony, why should Hazamah
on the slaughter (nullify the testimony on the
theft) as if they were also Huzmu on the theft?!
1. Both Tana'im hold that anything done Toch Kedei
Dibur (within the time needed to greet someone) is
considered as a continuation of the previous matter.
2. Suggestion: Chachamim hold that Zomemim witnesses
are disqualified from the time they are contradicted
and onwards - therefore, they are only Huzmu on the
3. R. Yosi holds that Zomemim witnesses are
disqualified retroactively from when they testified
falsely - since their testimony on the slaughter is
as a continuation of their testimony on the theft,
they are Huzmu on both.
4. Rejection: All hold that Zomemim witnesses are
disqualified retroactively; they argue whether Toch
Kedei Dibur is considered as a continuation of the
i. Chachamim say it is not as a continuation of
the previous matter, R. Yosi says it is.
2) TOCH KEDEI DIBUR
(a) Question: Does R. Yosi really hold that Toch Kedei Dibur
is considered as a continuation of the previous matter?
3) HAZAMAH AFTER CONTRADICTION
1. (Mishnah - R. Meir): A man said 'This is a Temurah
of a burnt-offering, Temurah of a Shelamim' - it is
the Temurah of a burnt-offering;
(b) Answer: There are 2 measures of Toch Kedei Dibur: a
Talmid greeting his Rebbi, and a Rebbi greeting his
2. R. Yosi says, if he intended from the beginning to
make a Temurah of both, it works;
i. Since he cannot say both simultaneously, he
said them 1 after the other.
3. If he said 'This is a Temurah of a burnt-offering',
then reconsidered and said 'Temurah of a Shelamim' -
it is the Temurah of a burnt-offering.
4. Question: This is obvious!
5. Answer (Rav Papa): He reconsidered Toch Kedei Dibur.
1. A Talmid greets his Rebbi 'Shal-m to you, my Rebbi
and teacher' (in Hebrew, 4 words) - R. Yosi says,
within this time is not as a continuation;
2. A Rebbi greets his Talimd 'Shal-m to you' (in
Hebrew, 2 words) - R. Yosi says, within this time is
as a continuation.
(a) (Rava): Witnesses (on a capital case) were contradicted;
later, they were Huzmu - they are killed - contradiction
is the beginning of Hazamah (if we would not say this,
they would not be killed, for their testimony was already
disqualified before they were Huzmu), but the Hazamah is
not yet complete - we learn this from a Beraisa.
1. (Beraisa): 'We testify that Ploni blinded his
slave's eye and knocked out his tooth, behold Ploni
says so'; they were Huzmu - they pay to the slave
the value of his eye.
(b) Rejection ((Tosfos - on behalf of) Abaye): No - the case
is, the second pair of witnesses testified that Ploni
blinded the eye, then knocked out his tooth and also
Hazimu the first pair. (They said, your testimony was
fabricated; at the time you claim to have witnessed the
blows, you were with us elsewhere. Really, he hit his
slave at a different time!)
2. Question: What is the case?
i. Suggestion: No other witnesses testified that
Ploni hurt his slave.
3. Answer: Rather, 2 witnesses testified that Ploni
knocked out his slave's tooth, then blinded his eye
- this obligates Ploni to (free the slave and) pay
the value of his eye;
ii. Rejection #1: They made the slave go free - why
should they pay him?!
iii. Rejection #2: They should pay the master for
depriving him of his slave!
iv. Rejection #3: Why does it say 'behold Ploni
says so' - their testimony hurts Ploni!
i. 2 other witnesses testified that Ploni blinded
his slave's eye, then knocked out his tooth -
this obligates Ploni to (free the slave and)
pay the value of the tooth;
4. The Beraisa concludes: They were Huzmu - they pay
the slave the value of his eye;
ii. This contradicts the first witnesses; the
master supports the latter witnesses, for they
obligate him to pay less.
i. This shows that contradiction is the beginning
(c) Question: Why does Abaye explain this way?
(d) Answer: Since the end of the Beraisa is when the second
pair switched the order of events and Hazimu the first
pair, also the beginning of the Beraisa.
1. (Beraisa): 'We testify that Ploni knocked out his
slave's tooth, then blinded his eye - behold, the
slave says so' - they were Huzmu - they pay the
value of his eye to Ploni.
2. Question: What is the case?
i. Suggestion: The latter witnesses (the Mezimim)
do not testify that Ploni hurt his slave.
3. Answer: Rather, the Mezimim admit that Ploni (at a
different time) knocked out his slave's tooth and
blinded his eye, but in the reverse order.
ii. Rejection: The first witnesses tried to
improperly make the slave go free, they should
pay the master his full value!
4. Question: (In both cases of the Beraisa), do the
Mezimim say that Ploni struck the slave before or
after the first witnesses testified?
i. If they say that it was later - still, the
first witnesses tried to make the slave go free
without reason, they should pay Ploni his full
5. Answer: Rather, they say that he hit him before the
first pair testified.
6. Question: Still - if the first pair testified before
Beis Din ruled that the slave goes free, they should
pay Ploni his full value, for Ploni was not
obligated to free him (he could have admitted in
Beis Din that he struck his slave)!
7. Answer: The case is, the first pair testified after
(other witnesses testified in a Beis Din that) ruled
that the slave goes free.