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.
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.
