No community start suggestion yet.
How can eidei zomemim receive malkis for false testimony about a kofer case when there's a conflicting monetary obligation? The shiur develops the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s approach that kofer is not merely financial payment but rather a din of 'hirshu rasha' - a psak beis din declaring someone a rasha. This resolves both the Ramban (רמב"ן)'s question about malkis and explains the hekesh between misas hashor and misa b'dei shamayim.
This shiur analyzes a complex passage in Makkos 2b dealing with eidei zomemim (conspiring witnesses) in cases involving kofer (ransom payment for a goring ox). The fundamental question addressed is how these witnesses can receive malkis (lashes) when there appears to be a monetary obligation that would exempt them from corporal punishment. The discussion begins with examining Rashi (רש"י)'s position and the Ramban (רמב"ן)'s interpretation. According to the Ramban, since kofer is fundamentally a din in misu b'dei shamayim (death by divine punishment), when witnesses are exposed as zomemim, their testimony becomes retroactively meaningless because shamayim never needed their eidus. This creates a fundamental problem for the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position that such witnesses do receive malkis.
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.
