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.
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.
