No community start suggestion yet.
What are the two distinct halachos within eidim she'ata yachol l'hazimam? The Rambam (רמב"ם) holds one halacha (הלכה) requires establishing the witnesses' intention to commit hazamah, needed throughout Torah (תורה). A second halacha requires ability to actually punish the witnesses - this applies only in dinei nefashos due to nefesh tachas nefesh.
This shiur develops the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s understanding of eidim she'ata yachol l'hazimam as containing two distinct halachic requirements. The first halacha (הלכה) requires establishing that the witnesses are eidim zomemim - you must know exactly what they testified and ascertain their intention. This applies throughout the Torah (תורה) in both dinei nefashos and dinei mamonos. The second halacha requires the ability to actually punish the witnesses if they are found to be zomemim. This second requirement applies only in dinei nefashos based on the pasuk of nefesh tachas nefesh. The shiur contrasts this with the Shach's approach, which maintains that even in dinei mamonos you fundamentally need eidim she'ata yachol l'hazimam, except that chazal removed the requirement of drisha v'chakira while assuming witnesses tell the truth. The Rambam disagrees - once chazal removed drisha v'chakira in dinei mamonos, they also removed the need to establish the witnesses' zman, except in specific cases like ben gerusha and ben chalutzah.
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.
