No community start suggestion yet.
How can the Gemara (גמרא)'s kal v'chomer work when both meizid and eidim zomemim involve goel hadam? The Ramban (רמב"ן) distinguishes between two types of golus: protective golus versus punitive golus with reshus for goel hadam to enforce it. This resolves the apparent contradiction in Rab Yochanan's logic.
This shiur examines a complex sugya in Makkos 2b regarding eidim zomemim and the laws of golus, focusing on the Ramban (רמב"ן)'s innovative approach to resolving apparent contradictions in the Gemara (גמרא)'s reasoning. The fundamental question centers on Rab Yochanan's kal v'chomer: if someone who kills b'meizid doesn't go to golus, surely eidim zomemim who did something less severe shouldn't go to golus either. The shiur begins by identifying two major difficulties with this reasoning. First, the basic kal v'chomer seems flawed since golus only applies to shogeg, not meizid, making the comparison inappropriate. Second, the Ramban raises a more sophisticated question: if golus is kapara (as the Gemara concludes), then eidim zomemim shouldn't need golus at all since "hani lo bnei kapara ninhu" - they don't need atonement.
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.
