x-mailing-list: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.)
_________________________________________________________________
THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL]
________________________________________________________________
Bava Kama 073: Pshat in a Rashi
Jeremy Caplan asked:
I am having difficulty understanding Rashi on Bava Kamman 73A Dibbur HaMaschil
"A'Geneva Delo Mitazmi Lo Itzum." Could you possibly give me a phrase by phrase
explanation of that Rashi?
Jeremy Caplan, Edison, NJ USA
----------------------------------------------
The Kollel replies:
I will give a short introduction by tracking back a few lines before the Gemara
which relates to the Rashi which you cite.
The Gemara states "Ella lav b'Shtei Eiduyos ..." and afterwards states ""Aval
b'Edus achas b'Bas Achas Lo". Rashi explains that they testified in one shot
that on Sunday he stole, and on Monday slaughtered the animal. They were then
proved to be Eidim Zomemim concerning the testimony for Sunday. (i.e. witnesses
said that they could not have seen the slaughtering on Sunday because they were
in a different place at the time).
The Gemara now attempts to claim that Rabanan maintain that an eid zomem only
becomes invalid from the time of his invalid testimony and onwards but not
retroactively. They were proved to be zomemim from the time of the slaughter
onwards but not for the testimony on the stealing.
Now to your Rashi. Rashi's title is what the Gemara states that since they were
not proved to be eidim zomemim on the theft, therefore their testimony on the
theft is valid.
(1) Rashi explains "v'Af Al Gav d'Behadi Ashidu Lay" - even though they gave
the testimony about the theft and about the slaughtering in one shot, i.e. in
one statement with no gap between speaking about the theft and speaking about
slaughtering -
(2) "Ha Lo aschil pesulihu may hai shayta" - they did not start to be invalid
from the time they testified about the theft (because they were not proved to
be zomemim on the theft testimony).
(3) "d'Neima af al gav d'Ah echad b'Shabbos lo itzam" - so that we should have
said that even though they were not proved zomemim for what they said happened
on Sunday -
(4) "Mihu Sha'as Eidusan Sha'as Paslus Hoysa" - nevertheless at the time they
gave testimony on the theft they were already invalid.
i.e. Rashi is explaining that we do not say that since the testimony on the
theft and on the slaughtering was given simultaneously, even though they were
not proved zomemim for the theft, nevertheless they are considered invalid for
the entire testimony, but rather we say that they are only invalid from the
time of the invalid testimony (slaughering) and onwards, and not from before.
Kol Tuv and a kesiva v'Chasimah Tova
Dovid Bloom
>>><><><>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<<
The *D*AFYOMI *A*DVANCEMENT *F*ORUM, brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Write to us at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit us at http://www.dafyomi.co.il
Fax(US):(206) 202-0323; Fax(Isr): (02) 591-6024; Tel(Isr): (02) 651-5004
_______________________________________________
Daf-discuss mailing list
Daf-discuss@shemayisrael.co.il
http://www.shemayisrael.com/mailman/listinfo/daf-discuss_shemayisrael.co.il
