No community start suggestion yet.
When does a false oath by a witness trigger a korban obligation? The shiur analyzes the fundamental dispute between Rav Acha bar Yaakov and Rav Pappa: is the korban due to causing monetary loss, or due to the insult of denying testimony when obligated to help? This chakira resolves major difficulties in the Gemara (גמרא) and Rambam (רמב"ם) regarding psul eidus d'rabanan and the king's exemption.
The shiur presents a fundamental analysis of the two types of shvua seidus (witness oath) obligations, using the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s formulation as the key to resolving major contradictions in the Gemara (גמרא). The Rambam in Hilchos Shvuos Perek Tes presents two distinct cases: (1) when one is asked to testify and refuses, then swears ignorance of testimony, and (2) when one is directly asked to swear they don't know testimony and denies knowledge in beis din. The Rambam's language indicates these represent two separate halachic foundations for korban obligation. The shiur identifies the machlokes between Rav Acha bar Yaakov and Rav Pappa as centering on the fundamental nature of shvua seidus. According to Rav Acha bar Yaakov, the korban obligation stems from causing monetary loss (hefsid mamon) - the witness's refusal prevented the claimant from recovering money. According to Rav Pappa, however, the obligation is based on a different principle: the witness was obligated to help, and by swearing falsely, didn't merely fail to help but actively hurt the claimant by undermining the legitimacy of his claim. This represents a tremendous insult and injury independent of actual monetary loss.
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!
Yoma 73b
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.
