Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

January 13, 2024 | ื’ืณ ื‘ืฉื‘ื˜ ืชืฉืคืดื“

  • Masechet Bava Kamma is sponsored by the Futornick Family in loving memory of their fathers and grandfathers, Phillip Kaufman and David Futornick.

Bava Kamma 72

Rav Nachman changed his mind and ruled that if one slaughtered and sold an animal that was jointly owned and the thief admitted to one owner, the thief would have to pay a partial payment of four/five times to the other owner. If so, how does Rav Nachman understand the difference between the cases of one who stole an animal of oneโ€™s father in this Mishna and the next Mishna โ€“ why in the case where the father died before it was slaughtered does the thief not need to pay the four/five payment to his brothers? The Mishna rules that if one slaughtered the animal as a non-sacred animal in the Temple, one would be liable to the four/five payment. Rav Chavivi infers from this a ruling on a different debate about whether the act of slaughtering is only considered significant at the end of the act or is it significant already from the beginning of the slaughtering. Rav Huna rejects Rav Chaviviโ€™s inference but Rav Ashi reinstates it. How can the other opinion be explained according to our Mishna? A different version of the inference Rav Chavivi is brought, in which they first quote the debate regarding slaughter and Rav Chavivi raises a question against Rabbi Yochanan from our Mishna. The Mishna brings various combinations of witnesses who become accused of being false witnesses in a theft case where the thief was accused of slaughtering and selling as well. What if one group was made zommemim and not the other? What if all of them? What if only one witness from one of the groups was made a zomem? Abaye and Rava disagree about whether an eid zomem is disqualified from being a witness when they testified falsely or when convicted to be an eid zomem. The Gemara brings the logic behind each position, but for Rava they bring two different suggestions.

ื“ืœื ืื›ืœื™ ื‘ืฉืจื ื“ืชื•ืจื


is because I had not eaten ox meat. In other words, I was fasting yesterday and was unable to concentrate properly.


ื•ืืœื ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืจื™ืฉื ื•ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืกื™ืคื


Rava responded to him: But if the Torah requires even a partial payment of the fourfold or fivefold payment, what is different in the first clause, in which the son must pay, and what is different in the latter clause, where he is exempt?


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื™ืฉื ืงืจื™ื ื ื‘ื™ื” ื•ื˜ื‘ื—ื• ื›ื•ืœื• ื‘ืื™ืกื•ืจื ืกื™ืคื ืœื ืงืจื™ื ื ื‘ื™ื” ื•ื˜ื‘ื—ื• ื›ื•ืœื• ื‘ืื™ืกื•ืจื


Rav Naแธฅman said to him: In the first clause, where the fatherโ€™s animal was stolen and slaughtered in his lifetime, I read about this case the verse: โ€œIf a man steal an ox or a sheep, and slaughter itโ€ (Exodus 21:37), which indicates that the thief slaughtered the ox or the sheep entirely in a prohibited manner. In the latter clause, where the animal was slaughtered after the fatherโ€™s death, I do not read about this case the verse: โ€œAnd slaughter it,โ€ which describes a slaughter that was performed entirely in a prohibited manner, because the animal already partially belonged to him, and his own portion of the ox was slaughtered in a permitted manner.


ื”ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ื•ื ืžืฆืืช ื˜ืจื™ืคื” ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื—ื‘ื™ื‘ื™ ืžื—ื•ื–ื ืื” ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืื™ื ื” ืœืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืืœื ืœื‘ืกื•ืฃ


ยง The mishna teaches: A thief who slaughters the animal but it was found to be a tereifa, and likewise a thief who slaughters a non-sacred animal in the Temple courtyard, pays the fourfold or fivefold payment. Rav แธคavivi of Meแธฅoza said to Rav Ashi: Conclude from the mishna that the act of slaughtering is considered to have been performed only at the end of the slaughtering process.


ื“ืื™ ื™ืฉื ื” ืœืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืžืชื—ื™ืœื” ื•ืขื“ ืกื•ืฃ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืฉื—ื˜ ื‘ื” ืคื•ืจืชื ืืกืจื” ืื™ื“ืš ืœื ื“ืžืจื™ื” ืงื ื˜ื‘ื—


Rav แธคavivi of Meแธฅoza explains: As, if you say that the act of slaughtering lasts from beginning to end, i.e., the halakhic ramifications of slaughtering are in effect throughout the process, one could raise a question with regard to the case of one who slaughters a non-sacred animal in the Temple courtyard: Once he slaughtered the animal a bit, at the very start of the act of slaughter, he has prohibited the animal, with regard to deriving benefit, as a non-sacred animal slaughtered in the Temple courtyard. When he slaughters the other part, it is already prohibited with regard to deriving benefit, which means that it is not an animal that belongs to its owner that he slaughters. Since deriving benefit from the animal is prohibited, it has no value; therefore, there is no ownership.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ื›ื™ ืงื ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืื”ื”ื•ื ืคื•ืจืชื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืœื ืชื™ื“ื—ื™ ื•ื˜ื‘ื—ื• ื›ื•ืœื• ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื•ืœื™ื›ื


Rav Huna, son of Rava, said to Rav แธคavivi in response: It is possible to explain the mishna even if one maintains that the halakhic ramifications of slaughtering are in effect throughout the slaughter. As, when does the thief become obligated to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment? It is when he performs that first bit of slaughter in the beginning, before the animal becomes forbidden. Rav Ashi said to Rav Huna: Do not dismiss Rav แธคaviviโ€™s objection with this explanation. The verse: โ€œIf a man steal an ox or a sheep, and slaughter itโ€ (Exodus 21:37), indicates that to impose liability to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment we require that the thief slaughtered it completely, and after having slaughtered it just a bit there is no complete slaughter yet.


ืืœื ืงืฉื™ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื’ืžื“ื ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉืฉื—ื˜ ืžืงืฆืช ืกื™ืžื ื™ืŸ ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ื•ื’ืžืจืŸ ื‘ืคื ื™ื


Rav Huna said to Rav Ashi: But if you are correct, the mishna is difficult according to the one who maintains that the halakhic ramifications of slaughtering are in effect throughout the slaughter. Rav Ashi said to Rav Huna: This is what Rav Gamda said in the name of Rava, concerning this question: The mishna is discussing a case where the thief slaughtered, i.e., severed, part of the two organs that must be severed in ritual slaughter, i.e., the trachea and the esophagus [simanin], outside the Temple, and finished slaughtering them inside the Temple. Therefore, the animal became prohibited with regard to deriving benefit only at the final stage of slaughter, concomitant with the liability to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment.


ืื™ื›ื ื“ืžืชื ื™ ืœื” ืื”ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืœื•ื™ ืกื‘ื ืื™ื ื” ืœืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืืœื ืœื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ื™ืฉื ื” ืœืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืžืชื—ื™ืœื” ื•ืขื“ ืกื•ืฃ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื—ื‘ื™ื‘ื™ ืžื—ื•ื–ื ืื” ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืœื™ืžื ืงืกื‘ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืฉื ืฉื—ื˜ื• ื‘ืขื–ืจื” ืœืื• ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื


There are those who teach that the preceding exchange took place with regard to the following dispute: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says in the name of Rabbi Levi the Elder: The act of slaughtering is considered to have been performed only at the end of the slaughtering process. And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: The act of slaughtering lasts from beginning to end. Rav แธคavivi of Meแธฅoza said to Rav Ashi: Shall we say that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan holds that the prohibition against deriving benefit from non-sacred animals that were slaughtered in the Temple courtyard is not by Torah law?


ื“ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ืžื›ื™ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ ืœื” ืคื•ืจืชื ืืกืจื” ืื™ื“ืš ืœืื• ื“ืžืจื” ืงื ื˜ื‘ื—


As, if it enters your mind that it is prohibited by Torah law the mishna here would be difficult, for as soon as he slaughtered the animal a bit, at the very start of the act of slaughter, he has prohibited the animal, with regard to deriving benefit, as a non-sacred animal slaughtered in the Temple courtyard. When he slaughters the other part it is already prohibited with regard to deriving benefit, which means that it is not an animal that belongs to its owner that he slaughters.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ื›ื™ ืงื ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื ืžื™ ืื”ื”ื•ื ืคื•ืจืชื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืœื ืชื™ื“ื—ื™ื” ื•ื˜ื‘ื—ื• ื›ื•ืœื• ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื•ืœื™ื›ื


Rav Aแธฅa, son of Rava, said to Rav แธคavivi: It is possible to explain the mishna even according to the opinion that the halakhic ramifications of slaughtering are in effect throughout the slaughter, and even if one maintains that it is prohibited by Torah law to benefit from a non-sacred animal slaughtered in the Temple. As, when does the thief become obligated to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment as well? It is when he performs that first bit of slaughter in the beginning, before the animal becomes forbidden. Rav Ashi said to Rav Huna: Do not dismiss Rav แธคaviviโ€™s suggestion with this explanation. The verse: โ€œIf a man steal an ox or a sheep, and slaughter itโ€ (Exodus 21:37), indicates that in order to impose liability to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment we require that the thief slaughtered it completely, and after having slaughtered it just a bit there is no complete slaughter yet.


ืืœื ืงืฉื™ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื’ืžื“ื ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ื›ื™ ืงื ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉืฉื—ื˜ ืžืงืฆืช ืกื™ืžื ื™ืŸ ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ื•ื’ืžืจืŸ ื‘ืคื ื™ื


Rav Huna said to Rav Ashi: But if you are correct, the mishna is difficult. Rav Ashi said to Rav Huna: This is what Rav Gamda said in the name of Rava: When does the mishna state that the thief is obligated to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment? It is in a case where the thief slaughtered part of the simanim outside the Temple, and finished slaughtering them inside the Temple. Therefore, the animal became prohibited with regard to deriving benefit only at the final stage of slaughter, concomitant with the liability to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment.


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื’ื ื‘ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉื ื™ื ื•ื˜ื‘ื— ื•ืžื›ืจ ืขืœ ืคื™ื”ืŸ ื•ื ืžืฆืื• ื–ื•ืžืžื™ื ืžืฉืœืžื™ืŸ ื”ื›ืœ


MISHNA: If one stole an ox or a sheep, as established based on the testimony of two witnesses, and he subsequently slaughtered the animal or sold it, also based on the testimony of the same witnesses, and these witnesses were found to be conspiring witnesses, these witnesses pay everything, i.e., not only the principal amount but also the fourfold or fivefold payment. This is in accordance with the Torahโ€™s decree with regard to conspiring witnesses: โ€œYou shall do to him as he had conspired to do to his brotherโ€ (Deuteronomy 19:19). Since these witnesses attempted to obligate the alleged thief to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment, they themselves must pay that full amount.


ื’ื ื‘ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉื ื™ื ื•ื˜ื‘ื— ื•ืžื›ืจ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉื ื™ื ืื—ืจื™ื ืืœื• ื•ืืœื• ื ืžืฆืื• ื–ื•ืžืžื™ืŸ ื”ืจืืฉื•ื ื™ื ืžืฉืœืžื™ืŸ ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ื›ืคืœ ื•ืื—ืจื•ื ื™ื ืžืฉืœืžื™ืŸ ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ืฉืœืฉื”


With regard to one who stole an ox or a sheep, as established based on the testimony of two witnesses, and he subsequently slaughtered the animal or sold it, based on the testimony of two other witnesses, if both these witnesses and those witnesses were found to be conspiring witnesses, the first set of witnesses, who testified about the theft of the animal, pay the alleged thief the double payment, which is what they had conspired to cause him to pay. And the last set of witnesses, who attested to the slaughter or sale of the animal, pay the alleged thief a twofold payment for a sheep or a threefold payment for an ox, which they had conspired to cause him to pay over and above the double payment.


ื ืžืฆืื• ืื—ืจื•ื ื™ื ื–ื•ืžืžื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืžืฉืœื ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ื›ืคืœ ื•ื”ืŸ ืžืฉืœืžื™ืŸ ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ืฉืœืฉื”


If only the witnesses in the last set were found to be conspiring witnesses, while the testimony about the theft remains intact, the thief pays the double payment to the animalโ€™s owner and the second set of witnesses pay the alleged thief the twofold or threefold payment, the amount over and above the double payment, which is what they had conspired to cause him to pay.


ืื—ื“ ืžืŸ ืื—ืจื•ื ื™ื ื–ื•ืžืžื™ืŸ ื‘ื˜ืœื” ืขื“ื•ืช ืฉื ื™ื” ืื—ื“ ืžืŸ ื”ืจืืฉื•ื ื™ื ื–ื•ืžืžื™ืŸ ื‘ื˜ืœื” ื›ืœ ื”ืขื“ื•ืช ืฉืื ืื™ืŸ ื’ื ื™ื‘ื” ืื™ืŸ ื˜ื‘ื™ื—ื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ืžื›ื™ืจื”


If only one individual from the last set of witnesses was found to be a conspiring witness, the second testimony is nullified, as it was not submitted by two valid witnesses, whereas the first testimony remains intact. If one individual from the first set of witnesses is found to be a conspiring witness, the entire testimony concerning the thief is nullified. The reason is that if there is no theft established by reliable testimony there is no liability for slaughtering the animal and there is no liability for selling it.


ื’ืžืณ ืื™ืชืžืจ ืขื“ ื–ื•ืžื ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืžืจ ืœืžืคืจืข ื”ื•ื ื ืคืกืœ ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืžื›ืืŸ ื•ืœื”ื‘ื ื”ื•ื ื ืคืกืœ


GEMARA: One who is rendered a conspiring witness is barred from providing testimony in the future. The Gemara cites a fundamental dispute with regard to this disqualification. It was stated concerning a conspiring witness: Abaye says: He is disqualified retroactively, from when he provided his testimony. Any testimony he may have provided after that point in time is retroactively nullified. Rava says: He is disqualified only from that point forward, i.e., from when he was established to be a conspiring witness, but not retroactively from when he provided his testimony.


ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืžืจ ืœืžืคืจืข ื”ื•ื ื ืคืกืœ ืžื”ื”ื•ื ืฉืขืชื ื“ืืกื”ื™ื“ ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ืจืฉืข ื•ื”ืชื•ืจื” ืืžืจื” ืืœ ืชืฉืช ืจืฉืข ืขื“


The Gemara explains the reasons for the two opinions: Abaye says he is disqualified retroactively because it is from that time when he testified that he is considered a wicked man, and the Torah said: โ€œDo not put your hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witnessโ€ (Exodus 23:1), which is interpreted to mean: Do not allow a wicked man to serve as a witness.


ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืžื›ืืŸ ื•ืœื”ื‘ื ื”ื•ื ื ืคืกืœ ืขื“ ื–ื•ืžื ื—ื™ื“ื•ืฉ ื”ื•ื ื“ื”ื ืชืจื™ ื•ืชืจื™ ื ื™ื ื”ื• ืžืื™ ื—ื–ื™ืช ื“ืฆื™ื™ืช ืœื”ื ื™ ืฆื™ื™ืช ืœื”ื ื™


Rava says that he is disqualified only from that point forward because the disqualification of a conspiring witness is a novelty, i.e., it is not based on logic. The reason is that this is a case of two witnesses against two other witnesses, in which case neither testimony should be accepted. What did you see that causes you to listen to the second set of witnesses, who testify that the first set were not at the scene of the purported event? You could instead listen to the first set of witnesses, who testify to the event, and disbelieve the second set. Yet the Torah teaches that the second set of witnesses is always deemed credible and the first set is subjected to punishment as conspiring witnesses.


ื”ืœื›ืš ืื™ืŸ ืœืš ื‘ื• ืืœื ืžืฉืขืช ื—ื™ื“ื•ืฉ ื•ืื™ืœืš


Therefore, as the disqualification of the conspiring witnesses is an anomaly, you have the right to disqualify them only from the time of the novelty and onward, i.e., this counterintuitive disqualification is not applied retroactively.


ืื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืจื‘ื ื ืžื™ ื›ืื‘ื™ื™ ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื™ื” ื“ืืžืจ ืœืžืคืจืข ื”ื•ื ื ืคืกืœ ื•ื”ื›ื ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื˜ืขืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื


There are those who say that Rava also holds like Abaye, who says that by rights a conspiring witness should be disqualified retroactively from when he provided his testimony, and here this is Ravaโ€™s reason for not disqualifying him retroactively:


  • Masechet Bava Kamma is sponsored by the Futornick Family in loving memory of their fathers and grandfathers, Phillip Kaufman and David Futornick.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Bava Kamma 70-76 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about a person who stole an animal and then killed it or sold it. If...
din and daf with elana stein hain gemara shiur for women

Din & Daf: Getting Someone Else to do Your Dirty Work (Episode 4)

Din & Daf: Conceptual Analysis of Halakha Through Case Study with Dr. Elana Stein Hain Getting someone else to do...
talking talmud_square

Bava Kamma 72: The Moment of Shehitah

More on the halakhot about slaughtering an animal that was stolen or consecrated, but slaughtered in the wrong place in...

Bava Kamma 72

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 72

ื“ืœื ืื›ืœื™ ื‘ืฉืจื ื“ืชื•ืจื


is because I had not eaten ox meat. In other words, I was fasting yesterday and was unable to concentrate properly.


ื•ืืœื ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืจื™ืฉื ื•ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืกื™ืคื


Rava responded to him: But if the Torah requires even a partial payment of the fourfold or fivefold payment, what is different in the first clause, in which the son must pay, and what is different in the latter clause, where he is exempt?


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื™ืฉื ืงืจื™ื ื ื‘ื™ื” ื•ื˜ื‘ื—ื• ื›ื•ืœื• ื‘ืื™ืกื•ืจื ืกื™ืคื ืœื ืงืจื™ื ื ื‘ื™ื” ื•ื˜ื‘ื—ื• ื›ื•ืœื• ื‘ืื™ืกื•ืจื


Rav Naแธฅman said to him: In the first clause, where the fatherโ€™s animal was stolen and slaughtered in his lifetime, I read about this case the verse: โ€œIf a man steal an ox or a sheep, and slaughter itโ€ (Exodus 21:37), which indicates that the thief slaughtered the ox or the sheep entirely in a prohibited manner. In the latter clause, where the animal was slaughtered after the fatherโ€™s death, I do not read about this case the verse: โ€œAnd slaughter it,โ€ which describes a slaughter that was performed entirely in a prohibited manner, because the animal already partially belonged to him, and his own portion of the ox was slaughtered in a permitted manner.


ื”ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ื•ื ืžืฆืืช ื˜ืจื™ืคื” ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื—ื‘ื™ื‘ื™ ืžื—ื•ื–ื ืื” ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืื™ื ื” ืœืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืืœื ืœื‘ืกื•ืฃ


ยง The mishna teaches: A thief who slaughters the animal but it was found to be a tereifa, and likewise a thief who slaughters a non-sacred animal in the Temple courtyard, pays the fourfold or fivefold payment. Rav แธคavivi of Meแธฅoza said to Rav Ashi: Conclude from the mishna that the act of slaughtering is considered to have been performed only at the end of the slaughtering process.


ื“ืื™ ื™ืฉื ื” ืœืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืžืชื—ื™ืœื” ื•ืขื“ ืกื•ืฃ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืฉื—ื˜ ื‘ื” ืคื•ืจืชื ืืกืจื” ืื™ื“ืš ืœื ื“ืžืจื™ื” ืงื ื˜ื‘ื—


Rav แธคavivi of Meแธฅoza explains: As, if you say that the act of slaughtering lasts from beginning to end, i.e., the halakhic ramifications of slaughtering are in effect throughout the process, one could raise a question with regard to the case of one who slaughters a non-sacred animal in the Temple courtyard: Once he slaughtered the animal a bit, at the very start of the act of slaughter, he has prohibited the animal, with regard to deriving benefit, as a non-sacred animal slaughtered in the Temple courtyard. When he slaughters the other part, it is already prohibited with regard to deriving benefit, which means that it is not an animal that belongs to its owner that he slaughters. Since deriving benefit from the animal is prohibited, it has no value; therefore, there is no ownership.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ื›ื™ ืงื ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืื”ื”ื•ื ืคื•ืจืชื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืœื ืชื™ื“ื—ื™ ื•ื˜ื‘ื—ื• ื›ื•ืœื• ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื•ืœื™ื›ื


Rav Huna, son of Rava, said to Rav แธคavivi in response: It is possible to explain the mishna even if one maintains that the halakhic ramifications of slaughtering are in effect throughout the slaughter. As, when does the thief become obligated to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment? It is when he performs that first bit of slaughter in the beginning, before the animal becomes forbidden. Rav Ashi said to Rav Huna: Do not dismiss Rav แธคaviviโ€™s objection with this explanation. The verse: โ€œIf a man steal an ox or a sheep, and slaughter itโ€ (Exodus 21:37), indicates that to impose liability to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment we require that the thief slaughtered it completely, and after having slaughtered it just a bit there is no complete slaughter yet.


ืืœื ืงืฉื™ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื’ืžื“ื ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉืฉื—ื˜ ืžืงืฆืช ืกื™ืžื ื™ืŸ ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ื•ื’ืžืจืŸ ื‘ืคื ื™ื


Rav Huna said to Rav Ashi: But if you are correct, the mishna is difficult according to the one who maintains that the halakhic ramifications of slaughtering are in effect throughout the slaughter. Rav Ashi said to Rav Huna: This is what Rav Gamda said in the name of Rava, concerning this question: The mishna is discussing a case where the thief slaughtered, i.e., severed, part of the two organs that must be severed in ritual slaughter, i.e., the trachea and the esophagus [simanin], outside the Temple, and finished slaughtering them inside the Temple. Therefore, the animal became prohibited with regard to deriving benefit only at the final stage of slaughter, concomitant with the liability to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment.


ืื™ื›ื ื“ืžืชื ื™ ืœื” ืื”ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืœื•ื™ ืกื‘ื ืื™ื ื” ืœืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืืœื ืœื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ื™ืฉื ื” ืœืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืžืชื—ื™ืœื” ื•ืขื“ ืกื•ืฃ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื—ื‘ื™ื‘ื™ ืžื—ื•ื–ื ืื” ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืœื™ืžื ืงืกื‘ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืฉื ืฉื—ื˜ื• ื‘ืขื–ืจื” ืœืื• ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื


There are those who teach that the preceding exchange took place with regard to the following dispute: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says in the name of Rabbi Levi the Elder: The act of slaughtering is considered to have been performed only at the end of the slaughtering process. And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: The act of slaughtering lasts from beginning to end. Rav แธคavivi of Meแธฅoza said to Rav Ashi: Shall we say that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan holds that the prohibition against deriving benefit from non-sacred animals that were slaughtered in the Temple courtyard is not by Torah law?


ื“ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ืžื›ื™ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ ืœื” ืคื•ืจืชื ืืกืจื” ืื™ื“ืš ืœืื• ื“ืžืจื” ืงื ื˜ื‘ื—


As, if it enters your mind that it is prohibited by Torah law the mishna here would be difficult, for as soon as he slaughtered the animal a bit, at the very start of the act of slaughter, he has prohibited the animal, with regard to deriving benefit, as a non-sacred animal slaughtered in the Temple courtyard. When he slaughters the other part it is already prohibited with regard to deriving benefit, which means that it is not an animal that belongs to its owner that he slaughters.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ื›ื™ ืงื ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื ืžื™ ืื”ื”ื•ื ืคื•ืจืชื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืœื ืชื™ื“ื—ื™ื” ื•ื˜ื‘ื—ื• ื›ื•ืœื• ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื•ืœื™ื›ื


Rav Aแธฅa, son of Rava, said to Rav แธคavivi: It is possible to explain the mishna even according to the opinion that the halakhic ramifications of slaughtering are in effect throughout the slaughter, and even if one maintains that it is prohibited by Torah law to benefit from a non-sacred animal slaughtered in the Temple. As, when does the thief become obligated to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment as well? It is when he performs that first bit of slaughter in the beginning, before the animal becomes forbidden. Rav Ashi said to Rav Huna: Do not dismiss Rav แธคaviviโ€™s suggestion with this explanation. The verse: โ€œIf a man steal an ox or a sheep, and slaughter itโ€ (Exodus 21:37), indicates that in order to impose liability to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment we require that the thief slaughtered it completely, and after having slaughtered it just a bit there is no complete slaughter yet.


ืืœื ืงืฉื™ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื’ืžื“ื ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ื›ื™ ืงื ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉืฉื—ื˜ ืžืงืฆืช ืกื™ืžื ื™ืŸ ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ื•ื’ืžืจืŸ ื‘ืคื ื™ื


Rav Huna said to Rav Ashi: But if you are correct, the mishna is difficult. Rav Ashi said to Rav Huna: This is what Rav Gamda said in the name of Rava: When does the mishna state that the thief is obligated to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment? It is in a case where the thief slaughtered part of the simanim outside the Temple, and finished slaughtering them inside the Temple. Therefore, the animal became prohibited with regard to deriving benefit only at the final stage of slaughter, concomitant with the liability to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment.


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื’ื ื‘ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉื ื™ื ื•ื˜ื‘ื— ื•ืžื›ืจ ืขืœ ืคื™ื”ืŸ ื•ื ืžืฆืื• ื–ื•ืžืžื™ื ืžืฉืœืžื™ืŸ ื”ื›ืœ


MISHNA: If one stole an ox or a sheep, as established based on the testimony of two witnesses, and he subsequently slaughtered the animal or sold it, also based on the testimony of the same witnesses, and these witnesses were found to be conspiring witnesses, these witnesses pay everything, i.e., not only the principal amount but also the fourfold or fivefold payment. This is in accordance with the Torahโ€™s decree with regard to conspiring witnesses: โ€œYou shall do to him as he had conspired to do to his brotherโ€ (Deuteronomy 19:19). Since these witnesses attempted to obligate the alleged thief to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment, they themselves must pay that full amount.


ื’ื ื‘ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉื ื™ื ื•ื˜ื‘ื— ื•ืžื›ืจ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉื ื™ื ืื—ืจื™ื ืืœื• ื•ืืœื• ื ืžืฆืื• ื–ื•ืžืžื™ืŸ ื”ืจืืฉื•ื ื™ื ืžืฉืœืžื™ืŸ ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ื›ืคืœ ื•ืื—ืจื•ื ื™ื ืžืฉืœืžื™ืŸ ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ืฉืœืฉื”


With regard to one who stole an ox or a sheep, as established based on the testimony of two witnesses, and he subsequently slaughtered the animal or sold it, based on the testimony of two other witnesses, if both these witnesses and those witnesses were found to be conspiring witnesses, the first set of witnesses, who testified about the theft of the animal, pay the alleged thief the double payment, which is what they had conspired to cause him to pay. And the last set of witnesses, who attested to the slaughter or sale of the animal, pay the alleged thief a twofold payment for a sheep or a threefold payment for an ox, which they had conspired to cause him to pay over and above the double payment.


ื ืžืฆืื• ืื—ืจื•ื ื™ื ื–ื•ืžืžื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืžืฉืœื ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ื›ืคืœ ื•ื”ืŸ ืžืฉืœืžื™ืŸ ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ืฉืœืฉื”


If only the witnesses in the last set were found to be conspiring witnesses, while the testimony about the theft remains intact, the thief pays the double payment to the animalโ€™s owner and the second set of witnesses pay the alleged thief the twofold or threefold payment, the amount over and above the double payment, which is what they had conspired to cause him to pay.


ืื—ื“ ืžืŸ ืื—ืจื•ื ื™ื ื–ื•ืžืžื™ืŸ ื‘ื˜ืœื” ืขื“ื•ืช ืฉื ื™ื” ืื—ื“ ืžืŸ ื”ืจืืฉื•ื ื™ื ื–ื•ืžืžื™ืŸ ื‘ื˜ืœื” ื›ืœ ื”ืขื“ื•ืช ืฉืื ืื™ืŸ ื’ื ื™ื‘ื” ืื™ืŸ ื˜ื‘ื™ื—ื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ืžื›ื™ืจื”


If only one individual from the last set of witnesses was found to be a conspiring witness, the second testimony is nullified, as it was not submitted by two valid witnesses, whereas the first testimony remains intact. If one individual from the first set of witnesses is found to be a conspiring witness, the entire testimony concerning the thief is nullified. The reason is that if there is no theft established by reliable testimony there is no liability for slaughtering the animal and there is no liability for selling it.


ื’ืžืณ ืื™ืชืžืจ ืขื“ ื–ื•ืžื ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืžืจ ืœืžืคืจืข ื”ื•ื ื ืคืกืœ ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืžื›ืืŸ ื•ืœื”ื‘ื ื”ื•ื ื ืคืกืœ


GEMARA: One who is rendered a conspiring witness is barred from providing testimony in the future. The Gemara cites a fundamental dispute with regard to this disqualification. It was stated concerning a conspiring witness: Abaye says: He is disqualified retroactively, from when he provided his testimony. Any testimony he may have provided after that point in time is retroactively nullified. Rava says: He is disqualified only from that point forward, i.e., from when he was established to be a conspiring witness, but not retroactively from when he provided his testimony.


ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืžืจ ืœืžืคืจืข ื”ื•ื ื ืคืกืœ ืžื”ื”ื•ื ืฉืขืชื ื“ืืกื”ื™ื“ ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ืจืฉืข ื•ื”ืชื•ืจื” ืืžืจื” ืืœ ืชืฉืช ืจืฉืข ืขื“


The Gemara explains the reasons for the two opinions: Abaye says he is disqualified retroactively because it is from that time when he testified that he is considered a wicked man, and the Torah said: โ€œDo not put your hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witnessโ€ (Exodus 23:1), which is interpreted to mean: Do not allow a wicked man to serve as a witness.


ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืžื›ืืŸ ื•ืœื”ื‘ื ื”ื•ื ื ืคืกืœ ืขื“ ื–ื•ืžื ื—ื™ื“ื•ืฉ ื”ื•ื ื“ื”ื ืชืจื™ ื•ืชืจื™ ื ื™ื ื”ื• ืžืื™ ื—ื–ื™ืช ื“ืฆื™ื™ืช ืœื”ื ื™ ืฆื™ื™ืช ืœื”ื ื™


Rava says that he is disqualified only from that point forward because the disqualification of a conspiring witness is a novelty, i.e., it is not based on logic. The reason is that this is a case of two witnesses against two other witnesses, in which case neither testimony should be accepted. What did you see that causes you to listen to the second set of witnesses, who testify that the first set were not at the scene of the purported event? You could instead listen to the first set of witnesses, who testify to the event, and disbelieve the second set. Yet the Torah teaches that the second set of witnesses is always deemed credible and the first set is subjected to punishment as conspiring witnesses.


ื”ืœื›ืš ืื™ืŸ ืœืš ื‘ื• ืืœื ืžืฉืขืช ื—ื™ื“ื•ืฉ ื•ืื™ืœืš


Therefore, as the disqualification of the conspiring witnesses is an anomaly, you have the right to disqualify them only from the time of the novelty and onward, i.e., this counterintuitive disqualification is not applied retroactively.


ืื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืจื‘ื ื ืžื™ ื›ืื‘ื™ื™ ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื™ื” ื“ืืžืจ ืœืžืคืจืข ื”ื•ื ื ืคืกืœ ื•ื”ื›ื ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื˜ืขืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื


There are those who say that Rava also holds like Abaye, who says that by rights a conspiring witness should be disqualified retroactively from when he provided his testimony, and here this is Ravaโ€™s reason for not disqualifying him retroactively:


Scroll To Top