No community start suggestion yet.
Are eidim zomemim punished for conspiracy or for lying? The Rambam (רמב"ם) defines eid zomem as one who testified falsely, not one who plotted. This fundamental distinction affects whether the law applies to individual witnesses or requires treating them as an indivisible unit.
This shiur analyzes the opening sugya of Makkos 2a regarding eidim zomemim who cannot receive their intended punishment. The Gemara (גמרא) states that when witnesses testify that a kohen married a gerusha or chalutzah, they cannot be made into ben gerusha ben chalutzah themselves - they only receive malkus. This creates a tension with Tosafos (תוספות)'s principle that witnesses must be subject to hazamah (eidim she'ato yochol l'hazimam). The shiur explores Tosafos's resolution that malkus constitutes a form of ka'asher zamam, sufficient to avoid the disqualification of eidim she'ato yochol l'hazimam. While the witnesses don't receive the exact consequence they intended, the beis din's willingness to punish them removes any bias against the defendant. This differs from cases where no punishment could be administered at all.
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 2a
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.
