No community start suggestion yet.
When false witnesses (eidim zomemim) are exposed, does each witness pay his full share even if his partner cannot pay? The shiur analyzes Makkos 5a to determine whether witness liability follows the model of punishment (onesh) where each bears individual responsibility, or restitution (tashlumim) where one might cover for an absent partner.
This shiur examines a fundamental question in the laws of eidim zomemim (false witnesses): when witnesses are proven false and liable for payment, what happens if one witness dies or disappears before paying? Must the remaining witness pay the entire amount, or only his individual portion? Rabbi Zweig analyzes the Gemara (גמרא) on Makkos 5a, which discusses the case where one witness admits (hodaah) that they gave false testimony in another beis din. The Gemara states that this witness pays only half (mishalem mi'fi chelko), not the full amount. The Gemara's question is: why shouldn't he be exempt entirely, since he cannot make his partner liable (ki'van l'chaver lo motzi, mechayav lei), so why should he be liable himself?
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.
