(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 75


(a) Rav holds 'Modeh bi'K'nas ve'Achar-Kach Ba'u Eidim, Patur'.
What does Shmuel say?

(b) How does Rava bar Ahila'i extrapolate Rav's opinion from "Im Himatzei Simatzei"?

(c) How does Rav know that the Pasuk does not come to teach us 'Modeh bi'K'nas Patur' (when no witnesses came afterwards)?

(d) What does Shmuel then learn from "Im Himatzei Simatzei"?

(a) The Tana of a Beraisa discusses a case where a Ganav who saw witnesses about to appear in Beis-Din, quickly admitted that he had stolen a sheep but declared that he did not Shecht or sell it.
On what grounds does the Tana exempt him even from Daled ve'Hey should the witnesses testify that he did in fact, Shecht or sell the animal?

(b) How does Shmuel initially attempt to reconcile his opinion with the Beraisa? How does he establish the Beraisa?

(c) How do we disprove Shmuel's explanation from Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, who says 'Yavo'u Eidim ve'Ye'idu'? What must the Tana Kama therefore hold?

(d) How does ...

  1. ... Shmuel finally vindicate himself?
  2. ... Rav reconcile his opinion with Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon?
(a) What distinction does Rav Hamnuna, commenting on Rav's Din, draw between a case where the Ganav confesses to having stolen before the witnesses arrived, and one where he denies that he had stole, but where, after the witnesses obligated him to pay the Keren and Kefel, he admitted that he had Shechted or sold the animal before the witnesses corroborated it?

(b) What is the reason for this distinction? Why might we not say 'Modeh bi'K'nas ve'Achar-Kach Ba'u Eidim Patur', in the latter case?

(c) How did Rava, based on Rav Chisda's Kashya to Rav Huna from the Beraisa of Raban Gamliel and Tavi (which we cited earlier), prove Saba de'Bei Rav wrong? Who is Saba de'Bei Rav?

(d) What did Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan say on the subject?

(a) What did we learn above from the fact that the Tana added the case ''Ganav al-Pi Shenayim ve'Tavach u'Machar *al-Pi Eid Echad* O al-Pi Atzmo, Meshalem Kefel ve'Eino Meshalem Daled ve'Hey'?

(b) What does Rav Ashi now extrapolate from the fact that the Beraisa presents the case of 'Ganav al-Pi Shenayim ve'Tavach u'Machar al-Pi Echad ... ', rather than 'Ganav ve'Tavach u'Machar al-Pi Eid Echad ... '?

(c) Rav Ashi also tries to prove Rav Hamnuna right from the Beraisa that we quoted earlier 'Ra'ah Eidim she'Memashmeshin u'Bo'in ve'Amar Ganavti Aval Lo Tavachti u'Macharti, Eino Meshalem Ela Keren.
How does Rav Ashi's attempt to support Rav Hamnuna from there?

(d) How do we refute Rav Ashi's proof from the Beraisa? Why else might the Tana present the case of 'Ganavti Aval Lo Tavachti ... ', rather than 'Lo Ganavti ... ve'Chazar ve'Amar Tavachti u'Macharti'?

Answers to questions



(a) The Tana Kama of a Beraisa discusses a case where two separate pairs of witnesses testify that someone stole and Shechted or sold an animal.
What do they rule in a case where ...
  1. ... the first pair of witnesses became Zomemin? Who pays Daled ve'Hey?
  2. ... the second pair of witnesses became Zomemin? Who pays Kefel and who pays Daled ve'Hey?
(b) Sumchus says 'Hein Meshalmin Kefel ve'Hu Meshalem Tashlumei Sheloshah le'Par ... '.
Why is it impossible to establish Sumchus either on the Reisha or on the Seifa of the Beraisa, as it stands?

(c) So we establish the Machlokes when the Ganav conceded to the first witnesses that he had stolen the animal (as well as having Shechted or sold it), but not in their presence, and he promptly brought witnesses who declared them Zomemin. The owner however, then brought a second set of witnesses.
What did they testify?

(d) How do we initially establish the Machlokes Tana'im? Why do ...

  1. ... the Rabbanan exempt the Ganav from Daled ve'Hey?
  2. ... Sumchus obligate him to pay?
(a) Rav Acha Brei de'Rav Ika rejects this suggestion however. According to him, both Tana'im hold that in the above case he would be Chayav to pay Daled ve'Hey.
Why is that?

(b) And he establishes their Machlokes when the Ganav concedes to the first pair of witnesses that he stole (as well as having Shechted ... ), though not in front of them, but in front of other witnesses. Then he subsequently brought witnesses who declared the first witnesses Zomemin, and the second pair of witnesses turned up and corroborated his confession.
What is the radical difference between this case and the previous one (which serves as the basis of the Machlokes Tana'im)?

(c) What is now the reason of ...

  1. ... the Tana Kama, who absolves the Ganav from Daled ve'Hey?
  2. ... Sumchus, who obligates him to pay?
(d) How does this also affect who becomes the recipient of the Kefel?
(a) How do we reconcile Sumchus' ruling with the fact that it is unamimously accepted that 'Eidus she'I Atah Yachol le'Hazimah, Lo Havya Eidus'?

(b) What is the problem with Sumchus' statement 'Hein Meshalmin Tashlumei Kefel', bearing in mind that the Ganav himself admitted to having stolen the animal?

(c) How do we therefore amend this statement?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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