A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
How can Makkos 5a say each false witness pays the full amount while Makkos 3a says they only pay half? The shiur develops two approaches: either false witness liability is a group obligation requiring full participation, or it distinguishes between restoration (money) versus punishment (lashes).
The shiur addresses a fundamental contradiction between two sugyos in Masechta Makkos regarding the liability of false witnesses (eidim zomemim). On daf 5a, the Gemara (גמרא) indicates that in cases of kasher zamam (what they intended to do), each witness must pay the full amount or receive full punishment. However, on daf 3a, the Gemara suggests that when one witness admits guilt, he only pays half, implying that normally each witness is only liable for their proportional share. Rabbi Zweig presents two primary approaches to resolve this contradiction. The first approach, following Abaye's position, distinguishes between different types of obligations. Money payments are in the category of restoring the victim (tashlumim), where the goal is to make the victim whole. Therefore, half payments from each witness can accomplish this restoration, making money "mitztaref" (combinable). However, lashes (malkus) are in the category of punishment for wickedness (risha), not restoration. Since the punishment must be complete and indivisible, half-lashes accomplish nothing - "ain malkus lemechzah" (lashes cannot be divided).
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.
