(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 74


(a) Abaye learns that the Reisha speaks about two pairs of witnesses (and not three) from the Seifa, as we shall now see.
Why does Rava nevertheless prefer to establish the Reisha by three pairs of witnesses? What will be the problem with establishing it by two?

(b) What does the Tana rule 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?

(c) How do we know that the second pair of witnesses (the Mazimin) concede that the master wounded the Eved?

(d) So how must the Beraisa be speaking? What do the second witnesses claim happened?

(a) In the current case (the Seifa), how do we know that ...
  1. ... the second witnesses predated the incident of the first stroke that set the Eved free?
  2. ... the Tana must also be speaking when the Beis-Din had already ruled that the Eved was to go free?
(b) Which Beis-Din are we talking about? What is the case?

(c) Why can Rava not establish the Seifa when a pair of witnesses testified that the master had knocked out first the Eved's eye and then his tooth, before the second pair reversed the two episodes and then became Zomemin?

(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.
Why can we not learn it from the Reisha (as we originally thought)? On what grounds would we not call it Hakchashah?

(b) Rav Ashi replied that Rava established the Seifa like the Reisha, by three pairs of witnesses.
What will then be the case?

(c) How does Rava prove his point from there?

(a) Abaye disagrees on the grounds that he prefers to establish the Seifa by two pairs of witnesses, and not three.
Why does he concede that the Reisha is speaking about three pairs of witnesses (although that is not what he said earlier [see the beginning of the Amud])?

(b) Then why does he nevertheless establish the Seifa by two pairs of witnesses?

Answers to questions



(a) What problem does Rebbi Zeira have with the fact 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?

(b) What does Abaye extrapolate from the Pesukin "Tachas Eino" and "Tachas Shino"?

(c) We assume (as we did above) 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).
What does Rav Idi bar Avin try to prove from here?

(d) How do we refute his proof?

(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 one says 'Einan Neheragin'.
What does Rebbi Elazar say about 'Eidim she'Hukcheshu be'Nefesh'?

(b) What does he mean? What is the case?

(c) What do we prove from this ruling with regard to the Machlokes over 'Eidim she'Hukcheshu ve'li'be'Sof Huzmu'?

(d) Considering that it is a matter of two against two, we ask, on what basis do we give Malkos to the witnesses who testify that Reuven did kill Shimon?
What happened according to Abaye?

(a) What is one obligated to pay if he steals a sheep ...
  1. ... through two witnesses and admits that he Shechted or sold it?
  2. ... and Shechts it on Shabbos or to Avodah-Zarah?
(b) Is someone who steals a sheep from his father and Shechts or sells it after his father's death Chayav to pay fourfold?

(c) Why is one exempt from Daled ve'Hey for Shechting or selling an animal that he stole and declared Hekdesh?

(d) What does Rebbi Shimon say?

(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', but why does the Tana find it necessary to add 'O al-Pi Atzmo'? What Chidush is he coming to teach us?

(b) This comes to preclude from Rav Yehudah Amar Rav.
What did Rav Yehudah Amar Rav say regarding 'Modeh bi'K'nas ve'Aschar-Kach Ba'u Eidim'?

(c) The Tana relates how Rebbi Yehoshua once discovered Raban Gamliel in a happy frame of mind.
Why was that? What had he just (inadvertently) done to Tavi his Eved?

(d) On what grounds did Rebbi Yehoshua dampen his elation?

(a) What do we infer from Rebbi Yehoshua's words 'Ein bi'Devarecha K'lum, *she'K'var Ein Lecha Eidim'*, which pose 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.
But was Rebbi Yehoshua not the Av Beis-Din?

(c) Another Beraisa quotes Rebbi Yehoshua as saying 'Ein bi'Devarecha K'lum, she'K'var Hodisa'.
How do we initially establish the Machlokes between the two Beraisos?

(d) We conclude however, that both Beraisos hold 'Modeh bi'K'nas ve'Achar-Kach Ba'u Eidim Patur.
Then what is the basis of their Machlokes?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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