No community start suggestion yet.
When false witnesses are zomemim, do they face the same penalty their victim would have faced? The shiur explores whether a thief's obligation is mechira (being sold as a slave) versus payment, and analyzes Rashi (רש"י) and Nimukei Yosef's different approaches to this fundamental question.
This shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Makkos 2b dealing with the laws of eidim zomemim (false witnesses) in cases involving theft where the penalty would be mechira (being sold as a slave). The Gemara (גמרא) discusses scenarios where witnesses testify that someone stole but don't have money to pay, requiring them to be sold. The fundamental question is whether the obligation is primarily mechira or payment, and how kasher zomam applies. Rabbi Zweig begins by examining the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position in Hilchos Geneivah 3:11, which seems to treat selling as simply a method of debt collection - first you take metaltelim (movables), then karka (real estate), then you sell the person. This creates difficulties with the Gemara's discussion, as it would make the entire sugya about kasher zomam problematic.
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 2b
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.
