(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 P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

Bava Kama 74


(a) Question (Rav Acha brei d'Rav Ika): From which part of the Beraisa did Rava learn?
1. Suggestion: He learned from the first case (as Rava explained it).
2. Rejection: The middle witnesses did not uproot the testimony of the first pair!
i. If not for the Mezimim, we would know that the slave goes free, but we would not know if he collects the value of his tooth or eye - we would have ruled that he gets the lesser (his tooth, as the first pair testified), since all agree that Ploni pays at least this much.
(b) Answer (Rav Ashi): Rava learned from the first case of the Beraisa that the second case also involves 3 pairs of witnesses.
1. Two witnesses testified that Ploni knocked out his slave's tooth, then blinded his eye; Beis Din ruled on this.
2. Two other witnesses later testified that Ploni blinded the slave after knocking out his tooth, contradicting the first pair.
3. The first witnesses were Huzmu - they pay to Ploni the value of the eye.
i. If contradiction is not the beginning of Hazamah, they should be exempt, for they were already contradicted!
(c) Abaye argues - he admits, there are 3 sets of witnesses in the first case, since it says, 'Behold, the master says so' (it must be, there are other witnesses that would make him pay more);
1. There is no need to say this in the second case - the slave supports any witnesses that testify that he goes free!
(d) Question (R. Zeira): We should say, the slave goes free for the loss of an eye or tooth or both (without other compensation)!

(e) Answer (Abaye): "(He goes free) in place of his eye" - not in place of his eye and tooth; "in place of his tooth" - not in place of his tooth and eye.
(f) Support (for Rava - Rav Idi bar Avin - Mishnah): Two witnesses testified that Reuven stole and slaughtered; they were found to be Zomemim - they pay the full fine.
1. Suggestion: The case is, first they testified about the theft, then about the slaughter; they were Huzmu regarding the theft, then Huzmu on the slaughter.
2. Even though Hazamah on the theft is as contradiction on the slaughter, the witnesses pay the full fine!
3. If contradiction is not the beginning of Hazamah - they should not pay for the testimony on the slaughter!
(g) Rejection: The case is, they were Huzmu about the slaughter first.
(h) The following Amora'im also argued whether contradiction is the beginning of Hazamah.
1. Witnesses (on a capital case) that were contradicted and later Huzmu - R. Yochanan and R. Elazar argued, 1 said they are killed, the other said they are not.
2. It must be that R. Elazar said they are not killed, for he said that witnesses on a capital case that were contradicted are lashed.
i. If he held that if they were contradicted and later Huzmu they would be killed, their false testimony is punishable by death, they should be exempt from lashes!
ii. Rather, he must hold that they are not killed.
3. Question: Why are they lashed - perhaps they told the truth, not the others!
4. Answer (Abaye): The alleged murdered victim (on whom they testified) walked into Beis Din, exposing their lie.
(a) (Mishnah): Two witnesses testified that Reuven stole, 1 witness testified (or Reuven admitted) that he slaughtered or sold - he pays double, not 4 or 5.
(b) Also in the following cases he pays double, not 4 or 5:
1. He stole and slaughtered on Shabbos, or to serve idolatry;
2. He stole from his father, and slaughtered or sold it after his father died;
3. He stole an animal, made it Hekdesh, then slaughtered or sold it.
4. R. Shimon says, a thief only pays 4 or 5 for sacrifices for which one must bring a replacement (if they become lost or blemished).
(c) (Gemara) Question: Why must the Mishnah teach that he does not pay 4 or 5 according to 1 witness - this is obvious!
(d) Answer: The Mishnah equates according to his own admission to according to 1 witness: just as by 1 witness, if another witness comes later, they join to make him pay - also by his own admission, if witnesses later come, he is liable!
1. This refutes Rav Huna.
(e) (Rav Huna): One who admits to a fine, if witnesses later come, he is exempt.
(f) Question (Rav Chisda - Beraisa): R. Gamliel once blinded the eye of his slave Tavi; he was happy, for this would set Tavi free. He told this to R. Yehoshua.
1. R. Yehoshua: Your words have no effect, for you have no witnesses.
i. Inference: If he had witnesses, Tavi would go free, even though R. Gamliel already admitted - this contradicts Rav Huna!
(g) Answer (Rav Huna): His admission did not count, because it was not in front of Beis Din.
(h) Question: But R. Yehoshua was the Av Beis Din!
(i) Answer: He was not in Beis Din at the time.
(j) Question (Beraisa): Your words have no effect, for you already admitted.
1. Suggestion: Tana'im argue over Rav Huna's law.
i. The first Beraisa said 'Your words have no effect, for you have no witnesses' - that Tana holds, witnesses obligate a fine even after admission;
ii. The second Beraisa said 'Your words have no effect, for you already admitted - that Tana holds, witnesses do not obligate a fine after admission.
(k) Answer: No, both agree that he is exempt after admission;
1. The first Tana holds that the admission was not in Beis Din (so witnesses would help later); the second Tana holds that the admission was in Beis Din.
Next daf


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