No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Rav Sadigora use the word "misa" when describing eid zomem, and what does "le'docro" mean? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: dinei nefashos requires witnesses you can actually punish (nefesh be'nefesh), while dinei mamonos only requires the ability to prove they're plotting. This resolves Tosfos's famous question about why malkos can serve as a fulfillment of ka'asher zamam.
The shiur opens with an analysis of the Rav Sadigora's piyyutim (liturgical poems), particularly examining why one poem on the Aseres Hadibros mentions "misa" (death) in connection with eid zomem, while another poem omits this term. Rabbi Zweig also questions the unusual phrase "le'docro" in describing how the witness intended to kill. The discussion centers on a fundamental machloques regarding eidim she'eino yachol lahazim (witnesses whom you cannot render zomemim). The Shach strongly rejects certain poskim who claim that dinei mamonos doesn't require eidim she'ata yachol lahazim, bringing multiple proofs including the Gemara (גמרא) in Bava Kamma, explicit statements in the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s Hilchos Malveh v'Loveh, and other sources that clearly require this standard even for monetary cases.
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.
