Bava Kamma - Daf 72

• If אינה לשחיטה אלא לבסוף, or מתחילה ועד סוף, re: חולין בעזרה

The Mishnah on Daf 70a taught that if a thief shechted a stolen animal in the עזרה, he pays ד' וה'. Rav Chavivi Mechoznaah said to Rav Ashi: ש"מ אינה לשחיטה אלא לבסוף – learn from this that shechitah is only [considered shechitah] at the end of the procedure, because if ישנה לשחיטה מתחילה ועד סוף – shechitah is from beginning to end, why would he pay ד' וה'? כיון דשחט בה פורתא אסרה – As soon as he cuts it a little, he prohibits it in benefit (as chullin shechted in the עזרה). אידך לא דמריה קא טבח – When he cuts the rest of the shechitah (required for ד' וה' liability), he is not shechting that which is the owner’s, since it is forbidden in benefit!? Rav Huna brei d’Rava suggested that he owes ד' וה' for that little amount that he first shechted, but Rav Ashi rejects this, because "וטבחו" – and he shechts it, implies all of it. Rava answered that the case is where he partially shechted it outside the עזרה, and completed the shechitah inside the עזרה. In another version, this discussion occurred regarding a machlokes if shechitah is לבסוף or מתחילה ועד סוף.

• If witnesses to the theft and/or sale or shechitah are found זוממין

The next Mishnah states: גנב על פי שנים – If one stole an animal according to the testimony of two witnesses, וטבח ומכר על פיהן – and he shechted or sold it according to their testimony, ונמצאו זוממים – and they were found to be zomemin (i.e., other witnesses testified that they were elsewhere at that time), משלמין הכל – they pay everything (the entire ד' וה'). If the shechitah or sale was established by different witnesses, and all were found זוממין, the first pair pays כפל, and the second pair pays the remaining threefold (for an ox). If only the latter pair was found זוממין (the remaining testimony stating only that he stole it), the thief pays כפל and the זוממין pay the remaining threefold. If only one of the latter witnesses was found a zomeim, that set of witnesses is invalidated (since one was discredited). Still, the zomeim does not pay unless both witnesses are found zomemin. If one of the first pair was found a zomeim, all the witnesses are invalidated, שאם אין גניבה אין טביחה ואין מכירה – because if there is no theft, there is no shechitah or sale.

• If an עד זומם is disqualified למפרע or מכאן ולהבא

Amoraim dispute when a witness found to be a זומם is disqualified for subsequent testimonies. Abaye says: למפרע הוא נפסל – he is disqualified retroactively from the moment of testimony (and any testimonies afterwards are disqualified), מההוא שעתא דאסהיד הוה ליה רשע – because from the moment he testified, he became a רשע, and the Torah disqualifies a רשע’s testimony. Rava says: מכאן ולהבא הוא נפסל – He is only disqualified from now onward, עד זומם חידוש הוא – because the discrediting of an עד זומם is a novelty, דהא תרי ותרי נינהו – because the contradicting testimony is really two against two. מאי חזית דציית להני – Therefore, what reason do you see to heed these second witnesses discrediting the first? ציית להני – Heed these first witnesses who testified they were there!הלכך אין לך בו אלא משעת חידוש ואילך – Therefore, since it is a novelty, you can only apply it from the time of the novelty and onward, i.e.,  from the time of the discrediting testimony. Alternatively, Rava explained that although Biblically, an עד זומם is disqualified retroactively, the Rabbis enacted not to disqualify his previous testimonies, משום פסידא דלקוחות – because of the loss of purchasers who used him as a witness in the interim. The Gemara provides practical differences between the explanations. This is one of six instances where the halachah follows Abaye over Rava.