No community start suggestion yet.
How does the Gemara (גמרא) learn that eidim zomemim against a ben gerusha or ben chalutza receive malkos? The shiur analyzes the Gemara's derivation from "v'hitzadakta es hatzadik v'hirshata es harasha" and explores the fundamental machloket between Rashi (רש"י) and the Rambam (רמב"ם) regarding whether this involves one or two baalei dinim.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of Makkos 5a, examining the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of eidim zomemim who testify falsely about someone being a ben gerusha or ben chalutza. The Gemara asks for the remez (hint) from the Torah (תורה) that such eidim receive malkos, since normally eidim zomemim are subject to "ka'asher zamam" - they receive the same punishment they intended to inflict. The Gemara derives this halacha (הלכה) from the pasuk "v'hitzadakta es hatzadik v'hirshata es harasha v'haya im bin hakos harasha." Rabbi Zweig explains that this creates a din of "rosha" on the eidim, which then makes them subject to malkos under "v'haya im bin hakos harasha."
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.
Why does the Gemara present a kal v'chomer for chuppah making kiddushin based on kesef not being maichel b'terumah, only to reject it? The shiur reveals that even the rejected kal v'chomer establishes a fundamental yesod: kiddushin is a kinyan for ishus (marital relationship), not merely a kinyan in hilchos kinyanim. The second kal v'chomer—from chuppah being gomeres—raises Tosafos's famous question.
Is the kesef used in kiddushin a true kinyan (acquisition), or merely a symbolic means of establishing marriage? The shiur analyzes multiple interpretations of the Gemara's derivation from ki yikach ki'ach mi'Sayeffron, exploring whether marriage constitutes ownership, and develops three fundamental approaches: (1) The Gemara proves ishus is a kinyan, (2) ishus is not a kinyan but uses kinyan-like means, or (3) ishus is a kinyan but the kesef may not be a ma'aseh kinyan. The Rambam's position—calling kesef "midivrei sofrim"—is explained as distinguishing between cross-referencing concepts versus borrowing terminology.
Why does the Mishna alternate between the language of "kinyan" (acquisition) and "kiddushin" (sanctification) when describing marriage? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: marriage has two separate aspects—a kinyan dimension (ownership) and a kedusha dimension (sanctified relationship). Either aspect can initiate the bond, and understanding this dual nature resolves multiple textual and halachic questions throughout the sugya.
Does kiddushei shetar require a shevah pruta? The Ran presents two approaches to the Rif's position. The shiur develops the Ran's second pshat that shetar kiddushin functions as a hachnah (exchange) rather than a mere kinyan nesina. This reading has profound implications for isuri hana'ah, mechubar, and the relationship between kesef and shetar.
