No community start suggestion yet.
When eidim zomemim testify against a bas kohen and her paramour, which punishment do they receive? The shiur analyzes the machlokes between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) on whether zomemim get chenek or sreifa, developing the yesod that kasher zamam may not always be punishment for the aveira itself but for corrupting the judicial process.
This shiur examines the complex sugya of eidim zomemim in Makkos 2a, focusing on the case where witnesses testify against a bas kohen who committed adultery. The central question is which punishment the zomemim receive when there are conflicting death penalties involved - the bas kohen gets sreifa while her paramour gets chenek. The shiur begins by analyzing Tosafos (תוספות)' approach, which argues that the zomemim must receive chenek rather than sreifa. Tosafos reasons that if there were no paramour in the case, the zomemim would still get chenek, proving this is the standard punishment. This leads to Tosafos' conclusion that the Gemara (גמרא) must be discussing a case where there is no actual paramour, making the zomemim's punishment chenek by default.
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 2a
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.
