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!
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 halacha forbid entering dangerous places if everything happens by Divine decree? The shiur examines the debate between Rashi and Tosfos on traveling at night, developing a fundamental distinction: Rashi holds one must avoid even deserved punishments that Hashem delays through mercy, while Tosfos holds the prohibition addresses self-inflicted harm through free will. This framework reveals how people rationalize self-destructive behavior as "hashgacha."
Why does the Gemara praise hospitality to scholars as a unique mitzvah rather than ordinary hachnasas orchim? The shiur distinguishes two mitzvahs: hachnasas orchim (providing for those in need) and connecting to talmidei chachamim (cleaving to God through scholars). Yisro's meal for the Jewish leaders wasn't charity—it was his way of bonding with those transformed by Torah, teaching that learning must fundamentally change who we are.
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!
