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.
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.
