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.
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.
