No community start suggestion yet.
What distinguishes cases where witnesses can defend themselves against zomem accusations versus those where they cannot? The shiur analyzes two scenarios in Makkos 5a through the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s lens. When witnesses fail to clarify unusual circumstances (like superior vision) during original testimony, later explanations are rejected as they violated their duty to specify their position.
The shiur examines two fundamental cases of eidim zomemim presented in Makkos 5a, focusing on when contradicted witnesses can successfully defend themselves and when they cannot. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses witnesses who claim someone committed murder on the east side of a building, only to be contradicted by witnesses saying they were on the west side at that time. A parallel case involves witnesses claiming a murder occurred in one city in the morning, contradicted by witnesses who saw them in another city that evening. The analysis centers on the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s formulation in Hilchos Eidus, particularly his requirement that assumptions about witness capabilities must be both 'matzui' (available/common) and 'yadua' (known). Rabbi Zweig explores why the Rambam adds this 'yadua' requirement and what it reveals about the nature of witness testimony.
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 5a
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.
