No community start suggestion yet.
What exactly is the dispute between Abaye and Rava regarding eid zomim? The shiur analyzes whether witnessing someone's location constitutes formal testimony or mere assumption. This distinction determines whether contradictory witnesses create hazamah (plotting witnesses) or hakashah (contradicting witnesses).
This advanced Gemara (גמרא) shiur explores the fundamental machloket between Abaye and Rava regarding the nature of eid zomim (plotting witnesses). Rabbi Zweig begins by clarifying that Abaye holds eid zomim was pashut (simple/obvious), while Rava maintains it was chidushei (a novel teaching). The core issue centers on whether witnesses' implicit testimony about their own location has the status of formal eidus. The shiur develops the position of Rabbeinu Chananel, who argues that if witnesses explicitly state 'we were there,' this becomes formal eidus and creates hakashah when contradicted. However, if they merely imply their presence (as required for their testimony to be valid), this assumption lacks the status of eidus according to some views.
Looking for the full summary?
Full access is available to members of the TUF Alumni Association or the Yam Hagadol Foundation.
Already a member? Let the admin know!
Makkos 5a
Looking for the full transcript?
Full access is available to members of the TUF Alumni Association or the Yam Hagadol Foundation.
Already a member? Let the admin know!
Dedicate a Shiur in Gemara
L'ilui nishmas a loved one. In honor of a simcha or yahrzeit. As a zechus for a refuah sheleimah. Your dedication helps carry Rabbi Zweig's Torah to learners around the world.
When an animal damages crops, the Torah prescribes a unique payment formula based on multiplying the damaged area by sixty. Does this formula redefine the actual loss, or does it merely create a payment mechanism that still acknowledges the full damage sustained? The Gemara explores whether someone who ate in doubt should pay the higher-quality amount, examining how the principle of motzi me-chaveiro alav haraya applies when payments fall within the range of actual loss.
What makes testimony valid when different witnesses testify to different parts of the same event? The Gemara debates whether the principle of "davar v'lo chatzi davar" (complete testimony, not partial) disqualifies witnesses who testify separately to theft and slaughter. Rashi's approach reveals that the issue is not merely combining elements, but whether each witness's statement is independently meaningful.
Why is a ganav who sells a stolen animal on Shabbos exempt from the fourfold/fivefold payment? The shiur analyzes whether this exemption stems from kam lei b'derabbah or from the absence of a valid mechira. The Rashba's principle that matana resembles mechira when it is "nishtarish b'chet" is explored, along with the Rambam's position on hekdesh and the distinction between giving to bedek habayis versus mizbe'ach.
When a ganav shechts a stolen animal l'avodah zarah, why isn't he patur from payment since it's already isur hana'ah? The shiur explores the fundamental machloket Rashi-Tosafot on whether the isur derives from the act of shechita or from the din shechita itself. The Gemara's application of davar garem be'mamon ke'mamon domi extends the analysis to when borrowed animals become niskal.
