No community start suggestion yet.
When false witnesses claim someone stole and should be sold as an eved ivri, what punishment do they receive? The Rambam (רמב"ם) holds they only pay money since theft creates a monetary obligation, not a status change. The Tur argues they always get malkos because selling for theft is a punishment (onesh), making them eidim she'eino yecholim lachazor.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental machlokes between the Rambam (רמב"ם) and Tur regarding the punishment for eidim zomemin who testify that someone stole and should be sold as an eved ivri. The Gemara (גמרא) in Makkos 2b discusses whether these false witnesses receive malkos or pay money, and whether it matters if they have money to pay. The Rambam in Hilchos Eidus holds that when someone steals, the primary obligation is monetary payment (chiyuv mamon). Sale as an eved ivri is merely a method of collection when the thief cannot pay, not a separate punishment. Therefore, when eidim zomemin falsely testify about theft, they receive the same monetary obligation - they must pay money, not receive malkos. The Rambam reads the Gemara's conclusion as establishing that there is no independent din of mechira (sale) for theft.
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.
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.
