No community start suggestion yet.
How much does each witness pay when eidim zomemim attempted to impose a monetary obligation? The Gemara (גמרא) explores whether witnesses have joint liability (50% each) or several liability (100% each if the other disappears). The analysis reveals that witnesses aren't considered resha'im at all when contradicted.
This shiur analyzes Gemara (גמרא) Makkos 2b regarding the liability of eidim zomemim in monetary cases. The Gemara states that Rabbi Akiva holds eidim zomemim pay as a knas (fine) according to the principle "asher zamam la'asot" - they suffer what they intended to cause. The discussion begins with Rashi (רש"י)'s seemingly redundant language explaining that when witnesses are contradicted, "lo horgu adam v'lo nerag adam al pihem" - no one was killed and no one was executed based on their testimony. The core question emerges from Rav Nachman's teaching that eidim zomemim pay "l'fi chelko" (according to his portion). The Gemara asks whether this means each witness pays only half their share, or whether they have full responsibility but practically split the payment. This connects to whether beis din acts as a shalish (trustee) holding money to ensure the victim receives full compensation, or merely facilitates division between the two witnesses.
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
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.
