No community start suggestion yet.
Why can't a king testify in Jewish law? The Rambam (רמב"ם) distinguishes two separate halachos: mideoraisa, a king is not *obligated* to testify (eino chayav lehoi'ot)—but he may if he wishes. Chazal added a rabbinic disqualification for a Melech Yisrael alone: he is *pasul* from testifying due to intimidation. This framework resolves major contradictions in the Rambam and explains the Gemara (גמרא)'s kal vachomer.
Rabbi Zweig undertakes a thorough analysis of the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s rulings on testimony by a king, revealing a fundamental distinction that resolves numerous apparent contradictions. The shiur centers on the question: what is the Torah (תורה) law regarding a king's ability to serve as a witness, and what did Chazal add? The Rambam states in Hilchos Eidus that a Kohen Gadol who knows testimony "eino chayav lehoi'ot"—is not obligated to come testify. Likewise, a king is not obligated to testify. Rabbi Zweig emphasizes that this language—"eino chayav"—does not mean "pasul" (disqualified). Mideoraisa, a king is not *required* to testify, but he is *permitted* to testify if he wishes. This is not a disqualification; it is an exemption from the obligation, rooted in kavod hamelech (the honor of the king). The king need not leave his responsibilities and subordinate himself by traveling to beis din.
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!
Yoma 74a
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.
