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.
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.
