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.
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.
