Bava Kamma 72b
בבא קמא ע״ב ע״ב
Learn Bava Kamma 72b step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.
Open Bava Kamma 72b in Gemara Clarity
Topic
Slaughtering חולין in the עזרה and the four-or-five payment; עדים זוממין in theft cases; when an עד זומם becomes disqualified
Overview
The amud opens in the middle of an argument over whether the ban on benefiting from חולין שנשחטו בעזרה is from the Torah or only דרבנן. Someone tried to prove it is only דרבנן from our משנה, which makes a thief who slaughtered in the עזרה pay four or five. רב אחא בריה דרבא pushes back, but רב אשי rejects his answer because "וּטְבָחוֹ" requires a complete slaughter. רב אשי then answers in the name of רב גמדא, quoting רבא: the thief began cutting the סימנים outside and finished inside, so the animal becomes forbidden only as the slaughter is completed. A new משנה follows about עדים זוממין who testified that someone stole an animal and then slaughtered or sold it. It explains who pays what when one pair or two pairs of witnesses are proven false, and why the whole case falls if a theft witness is false. The גמרא then brings a dispute: אביי says an עד זומם is disqualified going backward, from when he testified, and רבא says only from when he is caught. A second version says רבא really agrees with אביי, and his different reason continues on the next amud.
Opening lines
דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא,
For if it enters your mind that it is from the Torah,
מִכִּי שָׁחֵיט לַהּ פּוּרְתָּא – אַסְרַהּ,
as soon as he slaughters it a little, he has forbidden it,
אִידַּךְ – לָאו דְּמָרַהּ קָא טָבַח!
so for the rest, it is not its owner's animal that he is slaughtering!
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא:
Rav Acha, son of Rava, said to him:
The steps (14)
- ProofWhy the משנה seems to show the ban is only rabbinic
- RejectionThe thief is liable for that first bit of slaughter
- RejectionThe verse requires a complete slaughter
- ChallengeThen the משנה is difficult again
- ResolutionHe started outside and finished inside
- StatementNew משנה: false witnesses about theft and slaughter
- StatementTwo sets of witnesses, both caught lying
- StatementOnly the second set is caught lying
- StatementOnly one witness is caught lying
- StatementWhen does a lying witness become disqualified?
- Statementאביי's reason: the witness became wicked when he testified
- Statementרבא's reason: the law of עד זומם goes against normal logic
- ConclusionSo the disqualification starts only when the special rule kicks in
- StatementAnother version: רבא really agrees with אביי