BAVA KAMA 72 (7 Av) - Dedicated in memory of Dr. Simcha Bekelnitzky (Simcha Gedalya ben Shraga Feibush) of Queens, N.Y., Niftar 7 Av 5757, by his wife and daughters. G-d-fearing and knowledgeable, Simcha was well known in the community for his Chesed and Tzedakah. He will long be remembered.
BAVA KAMA 72 (14 Adar) - Dedicated l'Iluy Nishmas HaRav Ze'ev Wolf Rosengarten of Zurich, Switzerland, a person of "Sheleimus" in every way. Well-known for his Shimush of the Brisker Rav, Rav Wolf passed away on 14 Adar 5760. Dedicated in honor of his Yahrzeit by his nephew and Talmid, Eli Rosengarten of Zurich.

QUESTION: Rav Nachman explained to Rava that the reason why he did not give him the same answer the previous night as he gave him in the morning was that "I did not eat the meat of an ox." What did Rav Nachman mean by this?
(a) TOSFOS explains that Rav Nachman meant that he was fasting, and thus he 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. The Gemara in Bava Basra (22a) quotes Rav Ada bar Aba who told his students, "Instead of eating the bones in the Yeshiva of Abaye, go and eat the fleshy meat of the Yeshiva of Rava," a reference to the satiating style of teaching of Rava.
RAV YESHAYAH PIK (Chidushei ha'Shas) writes 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), "v'Lahag Harbeh, Yegi'as Basar." The Gemara explains that this verse means "anyone who toils in the words of Torah tastes the taste of meat." Rashi there explains 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 Rebbi Yochanan's view, then he must also rule that "an animal of Chulin slaughtered in the Azarah is not Asur mid'Oraisa" (but only Asur mid'Rabanan). If he ruled that it is Asur mid'Oraisa, 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? Does he mean to ask whether Rebbi Yochanan rules 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 dispute involves the Isur Hana'ah.
TOSFOS there questions Rashi's explanation. He asks that the Sugya implies that there is no part of the Isur that is mid'Oraisa.
(b) TOSFOS instead explains that according to the opinion that 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 maintains that neither the Isur to slaughter the animal in the Azarah, nor the Isur Hana'ah, is mid'Oraisa. The words of Rashi here also imply that the Isur of Shechitah is not mid'Oraisa.


QUESTION: The Gemara records a dispute between Abaye and Rava with regard to whether an "Ed Zomem" becomes an invalid witness retroactively (such that from the time he was found to be an Ed Zomem, all testimonies he gave after the false testimony are invalidated), 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 dispute is an "Ed Zomem," in the singular, and not "Edim Zomemim," in the plural, which the Mishnah and Gemara always mention? (TOSFOS to Sanhedrin 27a, DH d'As'hidu, and SHITAH MEKUBETZES to Bava Kama 73a)
(a) TOSFOS in Sanhedrin cites RABEINU TAM who answers that Abaye and Rava refer to a case in which only one of the two witnesses was found to be an Ed Zomem. (This is consistent with the view which Tosfos there discusses, 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 the testimony of the two witnesses is accepted over that of the single witness.)
(b) The SHITAH MEKUBETZES (73a) cites RABEINU YESHAYAH who answers that the Gemara here is not exact in its wording. Indeed, the verse itself is says, "v'Ed Ein Bah," when it refers to two witnesses.
The TORAS CHAIM cites another verse in the Parshah of Edim Zomemim itself which demonstrates that the singular "Ed" is often used in place of the plural "Edim" and it means two witnesses: "v'Hineh Ed Sheker..." and "va'Asisem Lo Ka'asher Zamam la'Asos" (Devarim 19:18-19).