Bava Kamma 72b — the Talmud in English

If it enters your mind:

non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard

are prohibited by Torah law,

then our Mishna, which obligates one to pay fourfold and fivefold for slaughtering non-sacred animals in the Temple courtyard, should present a difficulty, since

as soon as he slaughters a small amount

he has already

prohibited

the animal, for according to Rabbi Yohanan, “slaughtering takes effect from beginning to end”; and

the other part

[the continuation of the slaughter],

is he not slaughtering property that does not belong to him!?

Rather, it is certain that Rabbi Yohanan holds that non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard are not prohibited by Torah law.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said

to Rav Ḥavivi of Meḥoza in the presence of Rav Ashi:

It can always be said that Rabbi Yohanan holds that non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard are prohibited by Torah law. Nevertheless, with regard to our Mishna,

when it obligates

one to pay fourfold and fivefold,

it likewise obligates him for that small amount

[the beginning of the slaughter].

Rav Ashi said

to Rav Aḥa, son of Rava:

Do not reject the difficulty

in this manner! For

“and he slaughtered it”

requires the entire slaughter, and that is not the case here!

Rather, there is a difficulty, since it emerges that according to Rabbi Yohanan it has been demonstrated that non-sacred animals in the Temple courtyard are not prohibited by Torah law!?

ведь отсюда доказано, что, по мнению рабби Йоханана, мясо חולין во дворе Храма не запрещено по Торе?!

Rav Ashi

said to him:

This is what Rav Gamda said

in the name of Rava: When he obligates

one in our Mishna, it is

in a case where he slaughtered part of the identifying organs outside, and completed their slaughter inside.

A. Witnesses who testified with testimony that would obligate the litigant to pay money, and were disproven by two witnesses who said, “You were with us” on that day in another place, so that they could not have given the testimony that, according to their claim, they saw elsewhere, have thereby had their testimony invalidated. They must pay “as he conspired to do to his brother,” and the conspiring witnesses divide among themselves the sum that they sought to impose upon the litigant.

B. Witnesses do not become conspiring witnesses until all of them have been disproven, even if there were many of them. But if only some of the witnesses were disproven, then although their testimony is invalidated, they are not required to pay “as he conspired to do to his brother.”

C. Witnesses do not become conspiring witnesses until the judgment has been concluded on the basis of their testimony.

Mishna:

If he stole on the basis of two witnesses,

meaning, two witnesses testified that he had stolen,

and he slaughtered or sold on the basis of their testimony,

,

and they were found

the witnesses

to be conspiring witnesses

with regard to all their testimony,

the two witnesses

pay

together

everything:

both the double payment and the fourfold and fivefold payments that they sought to impose upon him, and they give it to the one upon whom they had conspired to impose it.

And if

he stole on the basis of two witnesses, and slaughtered or sold on the basis of two other witnesses,

and

both groups—

the witnesses to the theft and the witnesses to the slaughter—

were found to be conspiring witnesses,

then:

The first ones—

the witnesses to the theft, who conspired to obligate him to pay only double—

pay the double payment.

And the latter ones—

the witnesses to the slaughter, who conspired to add the twofold and threefold payments to his liability—

pay the payments

of twofold and

threefold.

And if

the latter ones

[the witnesses to the slaughter] alone

are found to be conspiring witnesses:

He,

the thief,

pays the double payment

on the basis of the witnesses to the theft, who were not disproven,

and they,

the witnesses to the slaughter who were disproven,

pay the threefold payment

that they sought unlawfully to impose upon him.

And if

one

alone

of

the

latter ones

[the witnesses to the slaughter]

is found to be a conspiring witness,

then

the second testimony is invalidated

and the thief is not held liable on its basis, while the first testimony, concerning the theft, remains valid. The conspiring witness is exempt from payment, because “conspiring witnesses do not pay until all of them have been disproven.”

And if even

one of the first ones

[the witnesses to the theft]

is found to be a conspiring witness,

then

all the testimony is invalidated, for if there is no theft, there is

no liability for

slaughter and there is

no liability for

sale.

But neither group pays, because neither testimony has been completely disproven.

Gemara:

Just as the Torah granted credibility to the second witnesses who say of the first witnesses, “You were with us and you spoke falsely,” with regard to invalidating their testimony and with regard to their liability under “as he conspired,” so too the Torah granted credibility to the latter witnesses with regard to disqualifying the first witnesses. We say that they testified falsely and became disqualified as witnesses because they are “wicked,” even though the two first witnesses contradict them and say, “We were at the place of the testimony.”

It was stated:

A conspiring witness,

that is, a witness who testified falsely in Nisan and was disproven with regard to his testimony in Iyar—Abaye and Rava disagreed concerning him: from what point does he become disqualified from testimony?

Abaye said: Retroactively,

from the time of his testimony

he becomes disqualified.

Rava said: From this point forward,

from the time he is disproven and thereafter

he becomes disqualified.

We explain the dispute between Abaye and Rava in two ways:

Abaye said: He becomes disqualified retroactively:

For

from that time when he testified

[from the time of his testimony]

he was a

wicked

because he testified falsely against his fellow,

and the Torah

indeed

said: “Do not place your hand with the wicked to be a corrupt witness”; and the Sages expounded:

“Do not appoint a wicked person as a witness.”

Rava said: He becomes disqualified from this point forward:

Because a

conspiring witness

whom we regard as a liar on the basis of the two witnesses who disproved him and said, “You were with us,” is

a novelty

of the

Torah—

For they are two witnesses against two witnesses

[since there is testimony here from two witnesses opposed by testimony from two witnesses]. For opposite the two witnesses who disprove them, saying, “You were with us” elsewhere, the two first witnesses each testify concerning himself and his fellow that they were indeed where they claim to have been. From logical reasoning, we should have said:

Why do you see fit to listen to these rather than to those?

Why do you listen to the words of the latter group, which says, “You were with us,” more than to those of the first group!?

Therefore,

although the Torah introduced the rule that the second group is believed,

“it applies only from the time of the novelty and onward,”

that is, from the time of the disproof.

Some say: Rava likewise agrees with Abaye

[Rava too agrees with Abaye],

as he says:

According to Torah law,

he becomes disqualified retroactively, but here,

when Rava said, “He becomes disqualified from this point forward,” this is a rabbinic enactment, for

this is the reason for Rava’s ruling: