A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Mishna call witnesses who testify that a kohen is a ben gerusha 'eidim zomemim' when they don't receive the standard hazamah punishment? The shiur develops that the Torah (תורה) requires eidim zomemim conviction standards even when excluding the usual kazamat punishment. The conviction must meet hazamah criteria, but the punishment becomes malkus rather than reciprocal consequences.
The shiur begins with a textual question on the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s codification of the Tosefta's ruling about ben gerusha, ben chalutza, noting that while the Rambam typically follows Tosefta when there's no disagreement with Bavli, he omits the specific case of mamzer mentioned in the Tosefta. This leads into the main Gemara (גמרא) discussion. The central question emerges from Ula's statement asking for a remez (hint) for eidim zomemim from the Torah (תורה). Rabbi Zweig identifies a fundamental difficulty: the Gemara just established that in cases of ben gerusha and ben chalutza, there is no din hazamah - no standard eidim zomemim punishment of 'ka'asher zamam.' Yet the Mishna refers to these witnesses as 'eidim zomemim.' This seems contradictory.
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.
