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.
PAST DEDICATION
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.

1)

HOW MUCH MUST HE SLAUGHTER TO BE LIABLE?

(a)

Question: Why is he liable in the Reisha (for slaughter in his father's lifetime) and exempt in the Seifa (for slaughter after his father died)?

(b)

Answer: "And he slaughtered it" connotes (that it was forbidden to slaughter) all of it. This is only in the father's lifetime;

(c)

(Mishnah): If the animal was found to be Tereifah... (or he slaughtered Chulin ba'Azarah), he pays four or five).

(d)

Version #1 Inference (R. Chavivi of Chuzna'ah): Only the completion of slaughter is considered slaughter;

1.

If the entire act of slaughter were considered slaughter, the animal would be Asur b'Hana'ah from the start of slaughter (in the Mikdash). For the rest of the slaughter, the animal did not belong to the original owner!

(e)

Objection #1 (Rav Huna brei d'Rava): He is liable for the very beginning of the slaughter!

(f)

Defense (Rav Ashi): This cannot be. "And he slaughtered it" connotes the entire slaughter.

(g)

Objection #2 (Rav Gamda): He is liable when he started the slaughter outside the Mikdash, and completed it in the Mikdash.

(h)

Version #2 (Reish Lakish) Only the completion of slaughter is considered slaughter;

(i)

(R. Yochanan): The entire act is considered slaughter.

(j)

R. Chavivi of Chuzna'ah: R. Yochanan must hold that the Torah does not forbid Chulin ba'Azarah!

72b----------------------------------------72b

1.

If he forbade mid'Oraisa, how could he explain why our Mishnah obligates? The animal is forbidden from the start of slaughter. For the rest of the slaughter, the animal did not belong to the original owner!

(k)

Objection #1 (R. Acha brei d'Rava): He is liable for the beginning of the slaughter.

(l)

Rejection (Rav Ashi): "And he slaughtered it" connotes the entire slaughter.

(m)

Objection #2 (Rav Gamda): The case is, he started the slaughter outside the Mikdash, and completed it in the Mikdash.

2)

LIABILITY OF EDIM ZOMEMIM

(a)

(Mishnah): If two witnesses testified that Reuven stole and slaughtered or sold; and they were Huzmu (found to be Zomemim, i.e. they were not present to see the testimony that they gave), they pay the full fine (four or five).

(b)

If two witnesses testified that Reuven stole, and two others testified that he slaughtered or sold, and both pairs were Huzmu, the first pair pays Kefel for the animal, and the second pair pays the remaining (two or) three;

1.

If only the second pair was Huzam, Reuven pays Kefel, and the second pair pays (two or) three;

2.

If only one witness was Huzam, if he is from the second pair, the testimony (about the shechitah or sale) is void;

3.

If he is from the first pair, the entire testimony is void. If he did not steal the animal, there is no [Isur] to slaughter or sell it!

3)

FROM WHEN ARE ZOMEMIM WITNESSES DISQUALIFIED?

(a)

(Abaye): If Shimon testified and was Huzam, all testimony that he gave or will give after his fabricated testimony are invalid;

(b)

(Rava): Only testimony he gives after he was Huzam is invalid.

1.

Abaye disqualifies him retroactively. He is a Rasha from when he testified, and it says "do not put... a Rasha (to be a) witness";

(c)

Version #1: Rava disqualifies from now and onwards, because the law of Edim Zomemim is a Chidush (exception):

1.

Why should we believe the latter witnesses (Mazimim), who say that the first pair are Zomemim? Perhaps the latter pair are lying!

2.

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!

(d)

Version #2: Rava agrees that the Torah disqualifies him retroactively;

1.

Chachamim enacted that he is disqualified from now and onwards to prevent a loss to buyers (who used these witnesses to sign their documents of purchase).

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF