No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא) ask for a "remez" for adam zomanim when the pasuk clearly states "va'asitem lo ka'asher zamam"? The shiur analyzes the dual process in eidim zomemim: conviction through hazamah and punishment through "asitem lo." Every eid zomem receives a din rasha, creating the framework for understanding when they receive malkus versus monetary payments.
This shiur provides a comprehensive analysis of the Gemara (גמרא) in Makkos 5b dealing with eidim zomemim (conspiring witnesses) and the seemingly puzzling question about finding a "remez" (hint) for adam zomanim in the Torah (תורה). The discussion begins with the Gemara's inquiry about where we derive the concept of eidim zomemim, despite the explicit pasuk "va'asitem lo ka'asher zamam." The shiur explains that there are two distinct processes in the halakhos of eidim zomemim. First is the process of hazamah - the conviction of the witnesses as perjurers, which requires specific procedures including "ein adam naasim zomemim achei yigmar hadin" and "ein adam naasim zomemim achei mushneim." The second process is "asitem lo ka'asher zamam" - the actual punishment phase. The Gemara's question about finding a remez relates to establishing why we need the formal hazamah process for conviction, not just any method of determining perjury.
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 5b
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.
