ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 74
(a) Abaye learns that the Reisha speaks about two pairs of witnesses (and
not three) from the Seifa, as we shall now see. Rava nevertheless prefer to
establish the Reisha by three pairs of witnesses. The problem with
establishing it by two - lies in the words 'she'Harei ha'Rav Omer Kein'
(uttered by the Zomemin), which is difficult to explain unless two witnesses
had preceded them and testified that the master had first knocked out his
tooth and then his eye.
(b) In the Seifa, where two witnesses testify that a man knocked out first
his Eved's tooth and then his eye, (which pleases the Eved) and then become
Zomemin, the Tana rules - that they must pay the value of the eye to the
master (whenever we speak of the value of the eye in this Sugya, it
obviously means minus the value of the tooth).
(c) The second pair of witnesses (the Mazimin) must concede that the master
wounded the Eved - because otherwise, the first pair of witnesses would have
to pay the full value of the Eved to the master.
(d) Consequently, the Beraisa must be speaking - when the second witnesses
admitted that the master had wounded the Eved, but that he had first knocked
out his eye and then his tooth.
(a) In the current case (the Seifa) ...
1. ... the second witnesses must also have predated the incident of the
first stroke that set the Eved free - because otherwise, the first witnesses
would still have to pay the full value of the Eved to the master.
(b) We are referring to - an earlier Beis-Din, who, according to the
testimony of the second witnesses, had already obligated the master to set
the Eved free and to pay him for his eye, but he fled.
2. ... the Tana must also be speaking when the Beis-Din had already ruled
that the Eved was to go free - because otherwise, the first witnesses would
still have to pay the full value of the Eved to the master, seeing as the
master was not yet obligated to send him away.
(c) Rava cannot establish the Seifa when a pair of witnesses testified that
the master had first knocked out the Eved's eye and then his tooth, before
the second pair reversed the two episodes and then became Zomemin - because
then Beis-Din would rule like the first pair of witnesses (obligating the
master to pay the smaller amount [due to the principle 'ha'Motzi me'Chavero
Alav ha'Re'ayah']), and witnesses only become Zomemin if Beis-Din have rule
like their testimony.
(a) Rav Acha B'rei de'Rav Ika asked Rav Ashi from where Rava learned that
'Hakchashah Techilas Hazamah Hi'. The Seifa, we learned earlier, speaks when
there were no witnesses who preceded the Zomemin. Neither can we learn it
from the Reisha (as we originally thought) - because, due to the fact that
Beis-Din would rule like them against the first witnesses (because their
testimony obligated the master to pay a smaller amount [as we just
explained]), it would be the first witnesses who are Mukchashim, and not the
(b) Rav Ashi replied that Rava established the Seifa like the Reisha, by
three pairs of witnesses - where the first pair (the Zomemin) testified that
the master had knocked out the Eved's tooth and then, his eye, and Beis-Din
ruled like them. Then the second pair testified, reversing the order, and
making the first Mukchashin, and along came a third pair and made the first
(c) The first pair, like whom Beis-Din orginally ruled, subsequently became
Mukchashin and then Muzamin (to pay the master the value of the Eved's eye),
from which Rava extrapolates that 'Hakchashah Techilas Hazamah'.
(a) Abaye disagrees on the grounds that he prefers to establish the Seifa by
two pairs of witnesses, and not three. He does concede that the Reisha is
speaking about three pairs of witnesses (although that is not what he said
earlier) - because unless witnesses preceded the Zomemin, how could the
Zomemin maintain that the master is pleased with their testimony ... , as we
(b) He nevertheless establishes the Seifa by two pairs of witnesses -
because there is no problem with that. When the Zomemin say that 'the Eved
is pleased with their testimony', of course he is pleased to go free,
irrespective of whether he receives the value of his tooth or that of his
(a) Rebbi Zeira's problem with the fact that if the master knocks out both
the Eved's tooth and his eye, he goes free on account of the former and pays
compensation on account of the latter is - why he does not simply go free on
account of both, and pay nothing? (Presumably, this Kashya is based on the
fact that the Eved only goes free from the time that Beis-Din issue the
ruling, but not from the time that the master wounded him).
(b) Abaye extrapolates from the Pesukin "Tachas Eino" and "Tachas Shino" -
"Tachas Eino" 've'Lo Tachas Eino ve'Shino'; "Tachas Shino", 've'Lo Tachas
Shino ve'Eino' (in answer to Rebbi Zeira's Kashya).
(c) From the assumption that our Mishnah 'Ganav al-Pi Shenayim ve'Tavach
u'Machar al-Pihem, ve'Nimtze'u Zomemim, Meshalmin Lo es ha'Kol' follows the
natural order (that they first testified on the Geneivah, and then on the
Tevichah u'Mechirah, and they then became Zomemin, first on the first
testimony and then on the second) Rav Idi bar Avin proves - that 'Hakchashah
Techilas Hazamah Hi' (like Rava).
(d) We refute his proof however - by establishing the Mishnah when the
witnesses became Zomemin on the Tevichah first, and only then on the
(a) Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Elazar indulge in the same Machlokes as Abaye
and Rava regarding 'Eidim she'Hukcheshu ve'li'be'Sof Huzmu'. One says
'Neheragin', and the other, 'Einan Neheragin'. Rebbi Elazar says - 'Eidim
she'Hukcheshu be'Nefesh Lokin'.
(b) What he means is - that if two pairs of witnesses argue over whether
Reuven killed Shimon, the pair which testified that he did receives Malkos.
(c) We prove from this ruling that, in the Machlokes over 'Eidim
she'Hukcheshu ve'li'be'Sof Huzmu' - it must be Rebbi Elazar who says 'Ein
Neheragin', because it would be problematic if they were put to death, due
to the principle that someone who is subject to the death-penalty cannot
(d) Despite the fact that it is a matter of two against two, we give the
witnesses who testify that Reuven killed Shimon Malkos, Abaye explains -
because we are speaking when the allegedly dead man turned up on his own two
(a) If one steals a sheep ...
1. ... through two witnesses and admits that he Shechted or sold it - he
pays Kefel, but is Patur from Daled ve'Hey (because of the principle 'Modeh
(b) Someone who steals a sheep from his father and Shechts or sells it after
his father's death is not Chayav to pay fourfold - because, seeing as he is
a joint-owner, it is not "u'Tevacho" 'Kuleih be'Isura'.
2. ... and Shechts it on Shabbos or to Avodah-Zarah - he pays Kefel but is
Patur from Daled ve'Hey (because due to the principle 'Kam Lei bi'de'Rabah
Mineih', someone who is Chayav Miysah at the hand of Beis-Din is exempt from
(c) One is exempt from Daled ve'Hey for Shechting or selling an animal that
he stole and declared Hekdesh - because the animal that he Shechted belonged
to Hekdesh, and the Torah only obligates Daled ve'Hey on an animal
belonging to a Hedyot.
(d) Rebbi Shimon agrees with the Tana Kama in a case of Kodshim which the
owner is not obligated to replace should anything happen to it (i.e. if he
said 'Harei Zu'), but he argues with him by Kodshim on which he is liable,
as will be explained later in the Sugya.
(a) 'Ganav al-Pi Eid Echad O al-Pi Atzmo ... Eino Meshalem Arba'ah
va'Chamishah'. 'al-Pi Eid Echad' is necessary to teach us 'Modeh bi'K'nas
Patur'. The Tana finds it necessary to add 'O al-Pi Atzmo' to teach us -
that in the same way as the testimony of the one witness will obligate the
Ganav to pay Daled ve'Hey should a second witness join him, so too, will a
pair of witnesses who arrive after he confessed obligate him to pay Daled
(b) This comes to preclude from Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, who said 'Modeh
bi'K'nas ve'Achar-Kach Ba'u Eidim Patur'.
(c) The Tana relates how Rebbi Yehoshua once discovered Raban Gamliel in a
happy frame of mind - because he had inadvertently knocked out Tavi his
Eved's eye, and he thought that he would now go free to become a
full-fledged practicing Jew.
(d) Rebbi Yehoshua dampened his elation however - by informing him that
since he had no witnesses, Tavi would have to remain an Eved (we think,
because of 'Modeh bi'K'nas, Patur').
(a) We infer from Rebbi Yehoshua's words 'Ein bi'Devarecha K'lum, *she'K'var
Ein Lecha Eidim'* - that if he had had witnesses, they would have
effectively set Tavi free, a Kashya on Rav.
(b) We answer that Raban Gamliel's confession took place outside of
Beis-Din, and was therefore not taken into account. Yes - Rebbi Yehoshua was
indeed the Av Beis-Din but still the confession took place outside of
(c) Another Beraisa quotes Rebbi Yehoshua as saying 'Ein bi'Devarecha K'lum,
she'K'var Hodisa'. Initially, we connect the Machlokes between the two
Beraisos to the question of 'Modeh bi'K'nas ve'Achar-Kach Ba'u Eidim' - the
first Beraisa holds Chayav, the second Beraisa, Patur (like Rav).
(d) We conclude however, that both Beraisos hold 'Modeh bi'K'nas
ve'Achar-Kach Ba'u Eidim Patur (like Rav) - and whereas the first Tana holds
that Raban Gamliel's admission took place outside of Beis-Din (as we
explained earlier), the second Beraisa holds that it took place in front of