A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can witnesses incriminate themselves by admitting "eid sheker he'edeti" (I testified falsely)? The shiur examines whether this creates a din of hazamah or garmi, analyzing Rashi (רש"י)'s position that self-admission of false testimony constitutes hazamah despite the Mishna's requirement of being mazim on location.
This shiur delves into a fundamental question in the laws of eidim zomemim (conspiring witnesses): whether witnesses can incriminate themselves through admission of false testimony. The discussion begins with the Gemara (גמרא)'s statement "eid sheker he'edeti" (I testified falsely) and the resulting halachic implications. Rashi (רש"י)'s position emerges as central to the analysis. According to Rashi, when a witness admits "eid sheker he'edeti," this creates a din of hazamah (conspiring testimony) rather than garmi (indirect damage). This presents a significant difficulty because the Mishna explicitly states that hazamah requires being mazim "al guf hash'eidus" - testimony about where the witnesses were located during the alleged incident, not self-incrimination.
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.
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.
