No community start suggestion yet.
Why do eid zomeim receive malkos in cases where they cannot pay monetary compensation or receive other punishments? The shiur develops the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s yesod that all eid zomeim punishment requires the witnesses to have imposed a 'din rasha' - a status of wickedness - which then transfers back to them. This principle resolves apparent contradictions between the Rambam and Gemara (גמרא) regarding testimony about slavery versus theft.
This comprehensive shiur examines the complex laws of eid zomeim (perjurers) found in Masechta Makkos, focusing on cases where false witnesses cannot receive monetary punishment, physical punishment, or death penalty but still incur malkos (lashes). The shiur begins with the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of witnesses who falsely testify about someone being a ben gerushah ben chalutza (son of a divorced woman or chalitza), and the principle that such witnesses receive malkos even when they cannot pay monetary compensation. Rabbi Zweig analyzes the fundamental question of how we derive the laws of eid zomeim from the Torah (תורה), examining the Gemara's statement 'remez le-eidim zomemim min ha-Torah min heichan' - where is there a hint to perjurers in the Torah. The shiur explores Rashi (רש"י)'s interpretation versus the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s understanding of the pasuk 'v'hitzadiku es ha-tzaddik v'hirshiu es ha-rasha' (they shall justify the righteous and condemn the wicked), demonstrating how this verse serves as the source for eid zomeim laws.
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 2b-3a
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.
