BNEI AVIGDOR. Learn with us.
BNEI AVIGDOR. Learn with us.
Rabbi Avigdor Miller • 460 episodes
ר' אביגדור מילר
#
Name
Release Date
Duration
201
5.1 - Sukkah Daf 06 B (9 lines Up)
5.1 - Sukkah Daf 06 B (9 lines Up)
Nov 16, 2020
9:58
Yeshivah Bnei Avigdor expresses its sincere gratitude to DafHachaim.com for their willingness and readiness to assist us by providing free use of their illustrations, which are critical to understanding the gemara. May they be blessed with all the brachos of the Torah! Today’s learning sponsored by Avrumy Holtz In honor of the Bnei Avigdor Gemara Mentors Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU The Chachomim hold that a sukkah needs two proper walls and the third may be a tefach. Rabbi Shimon holds it needs three walls and the fourth may be a tefach. The gemara gave 3 explanations for their debate, the first was: The Chachomim hold yesh eim l’masores: The plural of sukkah, “Basukkos” is written three times in the Torah, but twice it is spelled in the singular form. This hints at the four walls of a sukkah, two singular and two from the plural. However the Torah had to use the word at least once to tell us to sit in the sukkah. We thus have a hint in the Torah for three walls. Halacha lemoshe misinai reduces the last wall to a mere tefach. Summary Answer 4: Everyone agrees that yesh eim l’masores. The Chachomim hold that since the Torah had to use the word at least once, that word is no longer available for derush. Rabbi Shimon holds that the first word can be used for derush. Rav Masnah: The possuk states “A sukkah is shade in the daytime from heat and a protection from torrent and downpour”. Rabbi Shimon holds that less than three walls offers no protection. Question: Where is the last wall of a single tefach placed? Rav: At a right angle with one of the other walls. Rav Kahana and Rav Asi to Rav: Why not place it diagonally? Rav did not respond. Shmuel from Levi: At a right angle with one of the other walls. This is also how the law is taught in Beis Medrash: At a right angle with one of the other walls. Rabbi Simon or Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: A board is made that is a bit wider than a tefach, and it is placed somewhat within three tefachim of the wall [at a right angle]. Following the principle of lavud , this then creates a 4 tefach wall which is the majority of the 7 tefachim necessary. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
202
4.6 - Sukkah Daf 06 B (10 lines Dn)
4.6 - Sukkah Daf 06 B (10 lines Dn)
Nov 15, 2020
0
Today’s learning sponsored by Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU 1.1: A Sukkah which does not have 3 walls, is possul. Summary Beraisa: Two proper walls (7x10 tefachim), the third may be even 1 tefach wide. Rabbi Shimon: Three proper walls (7x10 tefachim), only the fourth may be 1 tefach wide. Question: In what do they differ? Answer 1: The Chachomim hold “ yesh eim l’masores - the way a word is spelled out in the Torah should be looked at as the source”. Rabbi Shimon holds “yesh eim l’mikra - the way a word is read should be looked at as the source”. The Chachomim hold yesh eim l’masores: The plural of sukkah, “Basukkos” is written three times in the Torah, but twice it is spelled in the singular form. This hints at the four walls of a sukkah, two singular and two from the plural. However the Torah had to use the word at least once to tell us to sit in the sukkah. We thus have a hint in the Torah for three walls. Halacha lemoshe misinai reduces the last wall to a mere tefach. Rabbi Shimon holds yesh eim l’mikra: The plural of sukkah, “Basukkos” is written three times in the Torah, since the plural form is used, it seems to hint at six walls for a sukkah! However the Torah had to use the word at least once to tell us to sit in the sukkah. We are thus left with only two plurals which indicate four walls. Halacha lemoshe misinai reduces the last wall to a mere tefach. Answer 2: Everyone agrees that yesh eim l’mikra and the plural “basukkos” twice teaches four aspects of the sukkah. The Chachomim hold that “Basukkos” is needed to teach about the schach as well. There are thus only three teachings left for the walls. Rabbi Shimon holds that the schach doesn’t need specific mention by the Torah. Answer 3: Everyone agrees that yesh eim l’masores - and only three walls are taught by the Torah. The Chachomim hold that the halacha lemoshe misinai comes to reduce the third wall. Rabbi Shimon holds that the halacha lemoshe misinai comes to add a minimal fourth wall. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
203
4.5 - Sukkah Daf 06 A (4 lines Up)
4.5 - Sukkah Daf 06 A (4 lines Up)
Nov 12, 2020
0
4.5 - Sukkah Daf 06 A (4 lines Up) Today’s learning sponsored by Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU 4.3: Shiurin, Chatzitzin and Mechitzin are halacha leMoshe miSinai. Summary Challenge: Chatzitzin are Torah laws?! As it states “He should bathe in the water” - there should be nothing between him and the water. Resolution: The halacha leMoshe miSinai, teaches that these laws apply to hair as well; as in the case of Rabbah bar bar Chana. Rabbah bar bar Chana: If one hair is knotted, it’s a chatzitza (one hair forms a very tight knot and does not allow the water to pass through). If three hairs are knotted together, it’s not a chatzitza (the knot is somewhat loose). If two hairs are knotted together, it’s a safek. Challenge: Chatzitza in the hair is also a Torah law?! As it states “Es besaro”, the word es teaches that even what’s connected to the body [hair] must make direct contact with the water?! Resolution: The halacha leMoshe miSinai, teaches what constitutes a chatzitza; as taught by Rabbi Yitzchok. Rabbi Yitzchok: According to the Torah chatzitza only applies in a case of Rov (it covers the majority of the person or utensil) and Makpid (he intends to remove it). If he is not makpid, it is not considered a chatzitza. Chazal added that rov alone is a chatzitza, and that makpid alone is a chatzitza. Challenge: What about a chatzitza which is neither rov nor makpid? Resolution: We don’t say gezeirah l’gezeirah Mechitzin are halacha leMoshe miSinai: This was taught in 4.3, that the height of the sukkah walls (mechitzin) are halacha leMoshe miSinai. Challenge: This was only said according to Rabbi Yehuda, however according to Rabbi Meir, no halacha leMoshe miSinai tradition was necessary (since it can be derived from the height of the keruvim). Resolution: The halacha teaches Gud (3.3), Lavud (3.2), and Dofen Akumah (3.2). This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
204
4.4 - Sukkah Daf 06 A (4 lines Dn)
4.4 - Sukkah Daf 06 A (4 lines Dn)
Nov 12, 2020
8:10
This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
205
4.3 - Sukkah Daf 05 B (14 lines Up)
4.3 - Sukkah Daf 05 B (14 lines Up)
Nov 12, 2020
9:58
This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
206
4.2 - Sukkah Daf 05 B (12 lines Dn)
4.2 - Sukkah Daf 05 B (12 lines Dn)
Nov 12, 2020
8:03
This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
207
4.1 - Sukkah Daf 05 A (10 lines Up)
4.1 - Sukkah Daf 05 A (10 lines Up)
Nov 12, 2020
11:18
This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
208
*1.1-Makkos Daf 02 A (Preface)*
*1.1-Makkos Daf 02 A (Preface)*
Dec 10, 2019
21:16:38
▪Eidim Zoimemim - who have bad intentions, and give false testimony - are held responsible for their bad intentions.▪This is *not* an ordinary case of false testimony which is called Hakchasha. Hakchasha is when two sets of eidim (witnesses) contradict each other, so we don't believe either set.▪Hazamah is a gezeiras hakasuv (Torah Law) that when the eidim are contradicted in a specific way, when the second set of witnesses say that at the time they supposedly witnessed the crime they were someplace else - so then there is a din hazamah and these eidim are considered zoimemim.▪The first set of witnesses are called zoimemim, and the second set are the mazimim. The zoimemim are found guilty and are punished with the punishment they intended to bring upon the party they accused in beis din.▪Eidim zoimemim are only considered zoimemim if beis din accepted their words and issued a verdict based on their words, otherwise, there is no din hazamah.▪However, if Beis Din carried out the verdict and actually killed the accused;there's no din hazamah! Hazamah is only for a bad intention, however if their intention was already carried out, there is no hazamah.▪In money matters there is hazamah even when the verdict was already carried out. One svarah is because money is always reversible▪No testimony is accepted unless it is "eidus she'atah yachol l'hazimum". Only if it is possible to make witnesses zoimemim, can their testimony be accepted in the first place. Hazamah has to be able to apply to every testimony. A svarah is that it's a deterrent, if one knows that he can be severely punished for giving false testimony, he will refrain from doing so. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
209
*1.2-Makkos Daf 02 A (Beginning)*
*1.2-Makkos Daf 02 A (Beginning)*
Dec 10, 2019
22:46:20
*Mishna:**Two exceptions* to the rule of * v’asisem lo kasher zamam: *▪ Eidim zoimemim (who are kohanim) who testified that a kohen is a * chalal, * are not made chalalim but receive malkos instead.▪ Eidim zoimemim who testified that someone killed b’shogeg, are not punished with * galus * as they intended, but receive malkos instead. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
210
*1.3-Makkos Daf 02 A (6 Lines Down)*
*1.3-Makkos Daf 02 A (6 Lines Down)*
Dec 10, 2019
4:14:47
*Summary**Gemara**Question:* From the beginning of the mishna, it seems like it will explain what zoimemim are. But the mishna actually illustrates cases where ka'asher zamam (the sentence) is *not* fulfilled.*Question:* From the beginning of the mishna , it seems like it will explain how the *process of hazamah * works, and yet the mishna doesn't give us a hint of the process. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
211
*1.4-Makkos Daf 02 A (11 Lines Down)*
*1.4-Makkos Daf 02 A (11 Lines Down)*
Dec 12, 2019
12:16:08
*1.4-Makkos Daf 02 A (11 Lines Down)*SummaryThe Tanna is continuing where he left off at the end of Sanhedrin (before the diversion of Perek Chelek).Sanhedrin discusses a case where ka'asher zamam is not practiced.The daughter of a kohen that commits adultery is punished by sreifah , however zoimemim who wished to incriminate her are punished by chenek (the ordinary punishment for non-kohen adultery).*Our mishna continues* with a stronger divergence from the rule of ka'asher zamam , where the punishment is not similar at all, they only get malkos . See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
212
*1.5-Makkos Daf 02 A (8 Lines Up)*
*1.5-Makkos Daf 02 A (8 Lines Up)*
Dec 15, 2019
13:28:23
*1.5-Makkos Daf 02 A (8 Lines Up)**Summary**What is the source* for the laws of our Mishna? (Specifically the first law; * kohanim * who are found to be zoimemeim about someone’s status as a kohen , *remain kosher kohanim* themselves).*Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi* : Va’asisem *lo* ka’asher zamam. He is punished, not his children.*Question:* Invalidate *only the witnesses* and not their descendants?*Answer:* We must punish them with the *precise punishment* they intended to inflict with their testimony (they wished to invalidate their victim’s descendants as well).*Bar Pada, a logical proof:* A kohen who invalidates his seed, does not become invalidated himself (he is a kosher kohen as soon as he divorces the forbidden wife). Certainly these witnesses who invalidated no one ( *they merely intended to* ), should not be invalidated for their intention alone. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
213
*1.6-Makkos Daf 02 A (2 Lines Up)*
*1.6-Makkos Daf 02 A (2 Lines Up)*
Dec 15, 2019
8:49:59
*1.6-Makkos Daf 02 A (2 Lines Up)*The first minute or so of today’s recording is a repeat from yesterday. This was done intentionally to aid in understanding today’s material.*Summary**Bar Pada, a logical proof:* A kohen who invalidates his seed, does not become invalidated himself (he is a kosher kohen as soon as he divorces the forbidden wife). Certainly these witnesses who invalidated no one *(they merely intended to),* should not be invalidated for their intention alone.*Ravina* (of a later generation) *questions Bar Pada’s reasoning:* With this argument, *you nullify the entire system of hazamah! *Following your reasoning that an intention is less severe than an act : *If one killed another by stoning ( sekilah ), he is not stoned,* but is executed as any murderer, by sword ( sayif ).So *when zoimemim intended to punish someone with sekilah * (by testifying that he worshipped avodah zarah or was mechallel shabbos ), *they certainly cannot be stoned* for the intention alone!However the law of hazamah clearly states that they deserve sekilah in such a case.We therefore *reject Bar Pada’s reasoning* and accept only the explanation of Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
214
*First week review*
*First week review*
Dec 15, 2019
15:54:23
*First week review*Please find a review of this week's shakla v'tarya recorded by one of our subscribers.Do you feel confident to make your own recording?Send it in and maybe we'll use YOURS next week. We're all learning together! See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
215
*2.1-Makkos Daf 02 B (3 Lines Down)*
*2.1-Makkos Daf 02 B (3 Lines Down)*
Dec 15, 2019
20:46:48
*2.1-Makkos Daf 02 B (3 Lines Down)**Summary* Eidim zoimemeim do not incur the penalty (galus) for inadvertent killing. *What is the source* for this law?*Reish Lakish:* The possuk says: “ *He* has to flee”. But *not zoimemim .**Rabbi Yochanan:* If one murders * intentionally * he does not go into galus . Since these witnessessinned *intentionally, and* they *did not murder,* they should certainly not go into galus.*Objection:* Since they did not murder they should be *entitled to the kapparah* of galus .We therefore *reject Rabbi Yochanan’s reasoning* and accept only the explanation of Reish Lakish. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
216
*2.2-Makkos Daf 02 B (13 Lines Down)*
*2.2-Makkos Daf 02 B (13 Lines Down)*
Dec 17, 2019
15:31:09
*2.2-Makkos Daf 02 B (13 Lines Down)**Summary**Ula:* Is there *a hint to the law of Eidim zoimemeim * in the Torah?*Question:* It’s an open possuk ?!*Explanation:* Is there *a hint to the law of administering* malkos when standard ka’asher zamam is impossible?*The possuk states* (regarding two men who have a dispute in beis din ): “Justify the righteous one, and condemn he who is wrong (the rasha ), *then whip the man* who is wrong if applicable”.*Question: Do we whip everyone* who loses a case in beis din ?*Answer:* This possuk refers to a case where witnesses (A & B) condemned C. Then *another set of witnesses came and rendered A&B zoimemim ,* thus justifying he who was truly righteous (C). A & B are now rendered resha’im and when ka’asher zamam is impossible, they are whipped (receive malkos ).(They are only whipped if applicable. If ka’asher zamam is possible, *“we can only punish with one punishment”* and they do not receive malkos .) See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
217
*2.3-Makkos Daf 02 B (22 Lines Down)*
*2.3-Makkos Daf 02 B (22 Lines Down)*
Dec 18, 2019
3:00:30
*2.3-Makkos Daf 02 B(22 Lines Down)**Summary**Ula:* Is there *a hint to the law of administering malkos * when standard ka’asher zamam is impossible?*The possuk states* (regarding two men who have a dispute in beis din ): “Justify the righteous one, and condemn he who is wrong (the rasha ), *then whip the man* who is wrong if applicable”.*Question:* Shouldn’t they get malkos because they said *false testimony* , which is a lav (Torah prohibition)?*Answer:* Malkos does not apply to *a lav which does not involve action* (it’s just words).*Beraisa:* Four exceptional laws of eidim zoimemim: 1. They do not become * kohanim chalalim * (“ *He* ” is punished, not his children).2. They are not punished with * galus * (“ *He* ” has to flee, not zoimemim ).3. They do not pay * kofer * (A penalty one pays when his animal kills a person).4. They are not sold into slavery (When a thief cannot repay what he stole the laws of * eved ivri * apply to him and he is sold as a “Hebrew Slave”).*Rabbi Akiva adds:* (5.) They do not pay *by their own admission.*(If they admit to beis din that a different beis din found them guilty of hazamah , they are not liable to pay the hazamah penalty because it is a knas. [For a fuller explanation see shiur 3.1]). See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
218
*2.4-Makkos Daf 02 B (5 lines after spreads)*
*2.4-Makkos Daf 02 B (5 lines after spreads)*
Dec 18, 2019
14:17:33
*2.4-Makkos Daf 02 B (5 lines after spreads)**Summary**The Eidim Zoimemim do not pay kofer *Because they don’t deserve a kaparah. *Rav Chisda:* This is in accordance with the view of *Rabbi Yishmael bno shel Rabbi Yochanan Ben Brokah.**Beraisa:* Kofer is a redemption of “his life”.*Rabbanan:* The killed man’s life. In other words, kofer is a monetary payment for the damage caused.*Rabbi Yishmael bno shel Rabbi Yochanan Ben Brokah:* The life of the oxe’s owner, he should have been put to death but kofer is a kapparah , an atonement, for him. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
219
*2.5-Makkos Daf 02 B (10 lines after spreads)*
*2.5-Makkos Daf 02 B (10 lines after spreads)*
Dec 19, 2019
18:32:12
*Summary**Rav Papa* : Kofer is certainly a kapparah , there is no argument in that regard. It is only a question of how the price is assessed.The *Rabbanan* base their assessment on *the victim,* because the term hashasa is used by the Torah with regard to paying kofer . Hashasa is also used in the case of a woman who loses a fetus. There, the value of the fetus is assessed, and the payment is based on the damage done. Here too, the payment amount is based on the damage done.*Rabbi Yishmael* says that since kofer is pidyon nafsho - a redemption of his own life, his own value is assessed.*The Rabbanan* counter that the value of the damage is what brings about pidyon nafsho. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
220
*2.6-Makkos Daf 02 B (10 Lines Up)*
*2.6-Makkos Daf 02 B (10 Lines Up)*
Dec 20, 2019
5:22:00
*2.6-Makkos Daf 02 B (10 Lines Up)**Summary** They are not sold into slavery. **Rav Hamnuna thought:* This is in a case where the man accused of stealing has the ability to pay this sum, *and would not have been sold* based on theirtestimony.However if the accused man would have been sold (due to his inability to pay thesum he was accused of stealing), the witnesses *are, in fact, sold* (even if thewitnesses *do have the ability* to pay).*The gemara argues:* The witnesses never intended that the accused should besold, they gave him the option of paying, so they should have that option as well.*Rav Hamnuna intended to say:**The witnesses can in fact be sold* in a case where neither *the witnesses nor the accused* have the ability to pay. In such a case their intention was surely to bring about a punishment of slavery. However, *if the accused or the witnesses* has the ability to pay, they cannot be sold (as mentioned in the * beraisa * ).*Rava:* Witnesses can never be sold (even when they should be; logically) becausethe possuk says "He will be sold for *his* theft", but not for hazamah . See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
221
*Week 2 in review*
*Week 2 in review*
Dec 22, 2019
6:18:19
*Week 2 in review*Please enjoy the attached review (with gemara text).*MAZEL TOV, WE FINISHED AN ENTIRE BLATT.*Rabbi Milller would ask: *CAN YOU SAY IT LIKE ASHREI?*Take the time to review daf beis until you can say it in your sleep. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
222
*3.1-Makkos Daf 02 B (3 Lines Up)*
*3.1-Makkos Daf 02 B (3 Lines Up)*
Dec 22, 2019
19:12:53
*3.1-Makkos Daf 02 B (3 Lines Up)**Summary* *Rabbi Akiva: Zoimemim do not pay by their own admission.* Because it is a *knas* (a punitive payment rather than a restitutionary payment). A knas is never paid by one's own admission.*Rabbah: Hazamah is clearly a knas * , for they are killed or made to pay despite their having *done nothing* (but speak).*Rav Nachman: Hazamah is clearly a knas , for the money is still in the hands of the man they accused,* and yet they are made to pay.*Question:* Isn’t Rav Nachman saying the same thing as Rabbah?*Answer:* Indeed. Amend the text to read “ *And so says* Rav Nachman”.*Rav Yehuda amar Rav:*An eid zomeim pays *according to his part.*Does this mean that *the witnesses divide the payment* between themselves?That’s an *explicit Mishna!* (“We divide a monetary penalty but not a penalty of malkos ”). See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
223
*3.2-Makkos Daf 03 A (6 Lines Dn)*
*3.2-Makkos Daf 03 A (6 Lines Dn)*
Dec 23, 2019
21:31:51
*3.2-Makkos Daf 03 A (6 Lines Dn)**Rabbi Miller learned Tosefos here. In order to keep the shiur at 5 minutes we took it out. However you can listen to the full recordinghere.* http://chilp.it/b490748Tosefos is mentioned in the footnote.*Summary**Rav Yehuda amar Rav:*An eid zomeim pays *according to his part.*▪Explanation A: This refers to a case where *only one eid was huzam * (found guilty by hazamah ).Objection: The beraisa says: Hazamah only applies when *both witnesses* are huzam together.▪Explanation B: *Rava:* This refers to a case where *one eid admits* that he testified falsely¤.Objection: Once a testimony is accepted it *cannot be retracted.*▪Explanation C: This refers to a case where one eid testifies that he was * huzam in a different beis din. * The eid who admits to the hazamah , pays his share.This explanation is *not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva* that zoimemim do not pay by their own admission.▪Explanation D: This refers to a case where one eid testifies that they were huzam in a different beis din *who issued a ruling* holding them liable. Once a ruling is issued, it is binding (it is no longer considered merely a knas ).Although the single eid cannot make his partner liable, he still must *pay his part.* *¤Tosefos 1:* And he was huzam . He is therefore liable to pay his part.*Tosefos 2:* And therefore hazamah does not apply to him, only to his partner.*Bach:* And he is liable to pay because of garmi. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
224
*3.3-Makkos Daf 03 A (15 Lines Up)*
*3.3-Makkos Daf 03 A (15 Lines Up)*
Dec 24, 2019
16:23:29
*3.3-Makkos Daf 03 A (15 Lines Up)**Summary**Mishnah:* Zoimemim testified that A. divorced his wife *and is liable to pay his kesubah. *They are not liable to pay the full amount because a * kesubah will probably be paid* sooner or later.We assess the value of the kesubah ; the amount *an investor would be willing to pay* to collect the money in case of death and divorce, factoring in the risk of the wife dying first, in which case he would collect nothing.The zoimemim are liable for that amount. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
225
*3.4-Makkos Daf 03 A (10 Lines Up)*
*3.4-Makkos Daf 03 A (10 Lines Up)*
Dec 26, 2019
23:23:45
*3.4-Makkos Daf 03 A (10 Lines Up)**Summary**Gemara:**How do we assess the kesubah?**Rav Chisda:* We look at the *husband’s equity.* How much could he have sold it for? *Rav Nosson bar Oshaya:* We look at the *wife’s equity,* and subtract that from the total sum mentioned in the kesubah . (This is the amount they wished to steal from the husband). *Rav Papa: Agrees* that we look at the wife’s equity. He adds that we *only* assess the value of *the kesubah * , not any other financial issues the witnesses may have brought upon the husband by alleging that he had divorced his wife.(The witnesses can claim ignorance of any other financial assets that would be affected by a divorce).*Mishna:*Witnesses testified that *a debt is due in thirty days.* The plaintiff admits that he owes money but claims that it is not due until *ten years* .The penalty is assessed based on *how much one is willing to pay* to keep this sum for ten years as opposed to only thirty days.*Gemara:**Rav Yehuda amar Shmuel:* Shevi’is nullifies a loan made over ten years.Although the debtor cannot press for payment ( yigos ) during shevi’is , *he will eventually press* for payment. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
226
*3.5-Makkos Daf 03 B (2 Lines Dn)*
*3.5-Makkos Daf 03 B (2 Lines Dn)*
Dec 26, 2019
23:32:57
*3.5-Makkos Daf 03 B (2 Lines Dn)**Summary**Rav Yehuda amar Shmuel:* Shevi’is nullifies a loan made over ten years.Although the debtor cannot press for payment ( yigos ) during shevi’is, *he will eventually press* for payment.*Rav Kahana:* *Our mishna clearly states* that a loan can be extended over ten years?*Rava:* Our mishna discusses a case where (A) *a collateral ( mashkon ) was given.* (A mashkon renders the debt “collected”, there is thus no issue of “ lo yigos ” on shevi’is ). Or (B) if a man *handed over his debts to beis din. * (The Torah forbids an *individual* from collecting his debt; this prohibition does not apply to beis din ).These two cases are mentioned in a * mishna * : “One who posseses a collateral or gave over his debts to beis din , is not affected by shevi’is. ”*Ikka D’omri (A different version of this discussion):**Rav Yehuda amar Shmuel:* Shevi’is *does not nullify a loan* made over ten years.Although the debtor will eventually press for payment, *at the time of shevi’is * he is not in violation of lo yigos .*Rav Kahana: Our mishna is proof* that a loan can be extended over ten years.*Rava: Proof* from our mishna *is inconclusive* , because it may be referring to one of the two cases mentioned in a *different mishna: * “One who posseses a collateral or gave over his debts to beis din , is not affected by shevi’is. ” See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
227
*3.6-Makkos Daf 03 B (21 Lines Dn)*
*3.6-Makkos Daf 03 B (21 Lines Dn)*
Dec 27, 2019
5:11:36
*3.6-Makkos Daf 03 B (21 Lines Dn)**Summary**Rav Yehuda amar Shmuel:* If A lends B money *on condition that Shevi’is does not nullify the loan.* Shevi’is *does* in fact nullify the loan.*It would seem:* Shmuel is of the opinion that masneh al mah shekasuv batorah tna’o bateil - A condition that is *against the Torah is not a condition.**Challenge:**Itmar* (We learned): If A makes a sale to B *on condition that he cannot complain of ona’ah* (deceptive pricing).*Rav:* There is ona’ah. *Shmuel:* There is *no ona’ah. *(Shmuel is of the opinion that one can yield his Torah-rights. But in the case of shevi’is he holds that the one cannot yield?).*Resolution:**Rav Anan* explained the opinion of Shmuel as heard from *Shmuel* himself: In a case where A said “On condition that *you don’t hold ona’ah * against me”, then there is *no ona’ah. *But if he said “On condition that *there is no ona’ah ”* his condition cannot be effective, because there *is* in fact a din of ona’ah in the Torah.The same holds true for shevi’is : If A said “On condition that *you don’t nullify the loan* when shevi’is comes”, the loan would not be nullified.But if he said “On condition that * shevi’is does not nullify the loan”,* shevi’is *does* nullify the loan. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
228
*4.1-Makkos Daf 03 B (17 lines up)*
*4.1-Makkos Daf 03 B (17 lines up)*
Dec 29, 2019
19:59:52
*4.1-Makkos Daf 03 B (17 lines up)**Summary**Beraisa:* If A lends money to B *without stipulating the length of the loan period;* he cannot request payment before *thirty days.**Rabbah bar bar Chana,* in Rav’s presence, wished to explain: This refers to *a loan that was documented;* no one goes through the trouble of setting a loan down in a shtar (official document) for less than thirty days. But if the loan was not written down, payment can be requested before a thirty day period.*Rav Replied:* My uncle ( chavivi - dodi ), *Rabbi Chiya* said that this refers to *any loan.*This is confirmed by a beraisa.*Shmuel* said to *Rav Masna:* Don’t sit down until you explain to me the source for this law of the * beraisa. **Rav Masna* replied: “The *seventh year* is coming, the *year of shemitah* (desisting)”.Doesn’t everyone know that the seventh year is the shemitah year?This possuk is teaching that *besides for the seventh year* there is another period of *“desisting” from loan collection; thirty days* after the loan was made.Thirty days is often considered *“a year”.* See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
229
*4.2-Makkos Daf 03 B (5 Lines up)*
*4.2-Makkos Daf 03 B (5 Lines up)*
Dec 30, 2019
14:22:46
*4.2-Makkos Daf 03 B (5 Lines up)**Summary**Rav Yehuda amar Rav:* If one *opens a collar on Shabbos* (by creating a hole for his neck or by cutting seams), he is * chayav chatos * (has transgressed a Torah prohibition of Shabbos).*Challenge: Rav Kahana:* One is *not chayav chatos * for *breaking open a keg* on Shabbos; why is breaking open a keg less of a prohibition than breaking open a shirt?*Resolution:* The keg is *not connected.*(When you open a collar, *you’re completing a vessel* ( makeh b’patish ). The shirt was not ready for use without a neckhole. The keg was already in use, there is wine in it, and even if there was not, the cover was only placed on it until the keg would be needed, when the cover would be removed). See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
230
*4.3-Makkos Daf 03 B (4 Lines up)*
*4.3-Makkos Daf 03 B (4 Lines up)*
Dec 31, 2019
14:48:54
*4.3-Makkos Daf 03 B (4 Lines up)**Summary* (If a mikveh has the required amount (40 se’ah) of kosher water (mei geshamim), adding other water will not invalidate it. However if the mikveh does not yet have the required amount, it is invalidated by 3 lug of ordinary (mayim she’uvim) water). *Rav Yehuda amar Rav:* If a bit of wine fell into 3 lug of mayim she’uvim and *colored the water,* and now this red water fell into an incomplete mikveh, *the mikveh remains kosher* (once the water no longer looks like water it cannot be considered “ordinary water” that invalidates a mikveh).*Challenge: Rav Kahana:* There is a mishna where *Rabbi Yosi* states: *Colored water invalidates* a mikveh. *Rava responds:* Colored water is *considered water.* But wine mixed with water is considered *“mixed wine”* (it was common practice to water down wine before drinking it). See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
231
*4.4-Makkos Daf 03 B (2 Lines up)*
*4.4-Makkos Daf 03 B (2 Lines up)*
Jan 1, 2020
7:58:33
*4.4-Makkos Daf 03 B (2 Lines up)**Summary**Rav Yehuda amar Rav:* If a bit of wine fell into 3 lug of mayim she’uvim and *colored the water,* and now this red water fell into an incomplete mikveh, *the mikveh remains kosher* (once the water no longer looks like water it cannot be considered “ordinary water” that invalidates a mikveh).*Challenge: Rabbi Chiya* said in a *beraisa:* They lowered (the water level of) the mikveh ( *they declared it possul* and drained it).*Rava:* Rabbi Yehuda amar Rav is following the opinion of *Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri* , and Rabbi Chiya is following the opinion of the *Rabbanan.**We learned* (the opinions of the Rabbanan and Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri) *in a mishna : Almost 3 lug * of mayim she’uvim (only a kortov was missing) that was completed by a bit of wine (which colored the water), and now this *red water* fell into an incomplete mikveh, *the mikveh remains kosher* (because it was not 3 full lug of water. We can infer from this teaching that the right amount of water would have disqualified the mikveh regardless of its color. This concurs with the opinion of Rabbi Chiya).*The mishna continues: Almost 3 lug * of mayim she’uvim (only a kortov was missing) that was completed by a bit of *milk* (which did not color the water), and now this water fell into an incomplete mikveh, *the mikveh remains kosher* (because it was not 3 full lug of water. Despite the fact that the liquid looks like a full 3 lug of water. This mishna does not take the “look” of the water into consideration at all, only it substance and composition). See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
232
*4.5-Makkos Daf 04 A (5 Lines Dn)*
*4.5-Makkos Daf 04 A (5 Lines Dn)*
Jan 2, 2020
2:41:45
*4.5-Makkos Daf 04 A (5 Lines Dn)**Summary**Mishna: Almost 3 lug * of mayim she’uvim (only a kortov was missing) that was completed by a bit of wine (which colored the water), and now this *red water* fell into an incomplete mikveh, *the mikveh remains kosher.**Almost 3 lug * of mayim she’uvim (only a kortov was missing) that was completed by a bit of *milk* (which did not color the water), and now this water fell into an incomplete mikveh , *the mikveh remains kosher.**The Mishna concludes: Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri* disagrees and states *Everything depends on the look.* (In the reisha [first part of the mishna] the mikveh indeed remains kosher because the colored water which “looks” like wine cannot be considered water.*In the seifa* [end of the mishna] we disagree with the rabbanan and *disqualify the mikveh,* since the liquid *looks like water,* it disqualifies the mikveh ).*Challenge:* You claim to resolve the opinions of Rav (4.3) and Rabbi Chiya (4.4) by aligning their opinions with those of Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri and the Rabbanan. These opinions are not clear, however:*Rav Papa inquired:* What is the proper wording of this mishna ? Does it read “Almost 3 lug ” in both the reisha (regarding wine) and the seifa (regarding milk), or *is the word “Almost” only in the seifa ?*If the word *almost* is omitted in the reisha, the Rabbanan are saying the same din as Rabbi Yehuda Amar Rav (4.3).According to this reading of the mishna , the Rabbanan do not hold that we only consider the amount of water and the “look” is inconsequential. The look (of wine) is enough to render the mikveh kosher.*Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri’s* opinion is that the only thing that matters is the “look” and it is enough to disqualify a mikveh even when the requisite amount of water is missing.According to this reading of Rav Pappa, *Rav’s opinion is unanimous.**Resolution:* The proper wording of the mishna *was a question to Rav Pappa,* but not to Rava (4.4). See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
233
*4.6-Makkos Daf 04 A (13 Lines Dn)*
*4.6-Makkos Daf 04 A (13 Lines Dn)*
Jan 3, 2020
23:14:22
*4.6-Makkos Daf 04 A (13 Lines Dn)**Summary**Rav Yosef said:* I was a close disciple of Rav Yehuda and I don’t recall ever hearing this statement of Rav Yehuda amar Rav (4.3)!(This is a frequent occurence in Shas, Rav Yosef became ill and forgot much of his learning and he was reminded by his disciples).*Abayye:* You taught it to us. You also taught us that this is according to both *Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri* and the *Rabbanan* as suggested by Rav Pappa (4.5. Although Rava rejected this understanding of the mishna , Abayye had learned more from Rav Yosef than Rava, and had learned this from his rebbi). See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
234
5.1-Makkos Daf 04 A (Middle)
5.1-Makkos Daf 04 A (Middle)
Jan 5, 2020
38:16
5.1-Makkos Daf 04 A (Middle)*Summary**Rabbi Yehuda Amar Rav:* If a keg of wine fell into the sea, one cannot immerse in that spot. This was said with regard to the Yam Hagadol, or a lake whose waters are relatively still.*A supporting Beraisa:* If a keg of wine fell into the sea,and one immersed in that spot, he remains tamei . If terumah fell in that spot, it becomes tamei (because the wine in that spot became tamei from the person who was trying to immerse).*Question:* Why is the law of terumah mentioned? (It is obvious that if the man is not purified, he remains impure, and the wine becomes impure!)*Answer:* To teach that the man remains tamei , not because of a chazakah of tumah oil. If that were the case, then the terumah should have remained tahor because of a chazakah of taharah . But the rule is that we assume that the wine remained in place. To learn the with *tosfos:* http://chilp.it/8b3fd8e See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
235
*5.2-Makkos Daf 04 A (10 lines Up)*
*5.2-Makkos Daf 04 A (10 lines Up)*
Jan 6, 2020
15:11:12
*5.2-Makkos Daf 04 A (10 lines Up)**Summary**Mishna: Rabbi Meir:* Witnesses testified that A *owes* B two hundred sus and they are found to be zoimemim, they *get malkos* for giving false testimony ( Lo sa’aneh ), and they *also have to pay* because of ka’asher zamam . They receive two punishments because each is based on a *different “name"* .°*Chachomim:* If they have to pay, they cannot receive malkos. (The gemara asks that in general, the opposite is true - one who receives malkos doesn’t pay, see 5.?).(There is a general rule that we cannot give two punishments for one sin, this is the reasoning of the Chachomim. However Rabbi Meir holds that hazamah is knas and thus not limited by the laws of regular punishments; 3.1, 5.3).Mishna continues: *Rabbi Meir:* Witnesses testified that A ate neveilah and *deserves malkos * and they are found to be zoimemim, they *get malkos twice* for Lo sa’aneh, and for ka’asher zamam. *Chachomim:* They only receive malkos once.° *Rashi;* Ordinarily we say that they only receive the more severe punishment, however since here there are two different pesukim and thus two separate sins, they receive both punishments.*Tosafos:* Lo sa’aneh is not connected with hazamah, as such it remains an independent lav and requires punishment. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
236
*5.3-Makkos Daf 04 B (Top line)*
*5.3-Makkos Daf 04 B (Top line)*
Jan 7, 2020
1:47:09
*5.3-Makkos Daf 04 B (Top line)**Summary**Gemara:**Question:* We understand the rulings of *the Chachomim * . The Torah states *“K’dei rish’asoi”* (He shall be punished according to his wickedness), we understand that to mean that one can only be punished for one wickedness. But what is the basis for the ruling of *Rabbi Meir* that allows for multiple punishments?*Ulla:* Rabbi Meir follows the precedent of * Motzi shem ra * . One who falsely alleges that his wife was unfaithful gets * malkos and must also pay;* here too, one can get malkos and still be required to pay.*Challenge:* Motzi shem ra is an exceptional case of * knas * (a punitive payment rather than a restitutionary payment)! It cannot be used as precedent?*Resolution: Rabbi Meir* follows the opinion of *Rabbi Akiva* (3.1) that * hazamah is a knas. **Ikka D’masni* (a different version of *Ulla’s discussion* ):*Beraisa:**Rabbi Yehuda:* The possuk states: “ *Do not* leave over from it (the korban ) until morning; anything leftover ( * nosar * ) by morning *should be* burned”.The possuk give a positive commandment ( Eseh ) after a negative commandment ( Lo seseh - Lav ) to teach that *there is no malkos.* (This is called a *lav hanitak l’eseh;* a lav that gets moved over, and becomes an eseh . By means of the added eseh , the Torah is telling us how to remedy transgression of the lav ).*Rabbi Akiva:* There is no malkos for nosar because it’s a * lav she’ein bo maaseh * (it is transgressed passively).Apparently then, *Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion* is that there *is malkos * for a * lav she’ein bo maaseh. * See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
237
*5.4-Makkos Daf 04 B (15 lines Dn)*
*5.4-Makkos Daf 04 B (15 lines Dn)*
Jan 8, 2020
1:15:09
*5.4-Makkos Daf 04 B (15 lines Dn)**Summary**Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion* is that there *is malkos * for a * lav she’ein bo maaseh. **What’s the source?**Ulla: Rabbi Yehuda* follows the precedent of * Motzi shem ra. * One who falsely alleges that his wife was unfaithful gets * malkos * even though he committed *no act* (he transgressed by speaking alone); we therefore learn that one can get malkos for any * lav she’ein bo maaseh. **Challenge:* Motzi shem ra is an *exceptional case* where k’dei rish’asoi is overruled and he *receives two punishments* (5.3)! It cannot be used as precedent?*Reish Lakish: Rabbi Yehuda* follows the precedent of * Hazamah * . *Eidim Zoimemim* get * malkos * even though they committed *no act* (they transgressed by speaking alone); we therefore learn that one can get malkos for any * lav she’ein bo maaseh. **Challenge:* Hazamah is an *exceptional case* where * hasra’ah * (warning as a prerequisite to punishment by beis din ) *is not necessary!* It cannot be used as precedent?*Resolution:* Motzi shem ra and Hazamah are both exceptional cases, but their exceptionality cannot be what causes malkos for a lav she’ein bo maaseh because they are different exceptions.* Hatzad Hashaveh * (the common denominator) is that they are both lav she’ein bo maaseh and they receive malkos , we can thus learn that *any lav she’ein bo maaseh is punished by malkos. * See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
238
*5.5-Makkos Daf 04 B (6 lines up)*
*5.5-Makkos Daf 04 B (6 lines up)*
Jan 9, 2020
15:30:24
*5.5-Makkos Daf 04 B (6 lines up)**Make sure you don’t miss the last 40 seconds of today’s recording for special announcements from Rav Miller ztz”l**Summary**Hatzad Hashaveh* (the common denominator) is that Motzi shem ra and Hazamah are both lav she’ein bo maaseh and they receive malkos, we can thus learn that *any lav she’ein bo maaseh is punished by malkos. **Challenge:* We find that they do have a common exceptional characteristic; they are *both knas! **Resolution: Rabbi Yehuda disagrees* with Rabbi Akiva (3.1). He does not hold that hazamah is knas .*Challenge:* We find that they do have a common exceptional characteristic; they are *both exceptionally strict * (tzad chamur)! *Resolution: Rabbi Yehuda disagrees* with the concept of tzad chamur. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
239
*5.6-Makkos Daf 04 B (4 lines up)*
*5.6-Makkos Daf 04 B (4 lines up)*
Jan 10, 2020
15:56:01
*5.6-Makkos Daf 04 B (4 lines up)**Summary**Question:* What do the chachomim (5.2) learn from the passuk of lo sa’aneh? *Answer:* It is necessary as a warning ( Azharas lav ). [ Ka’asher zamam is the punishment but ein onshin ela im kein mazhirin - punishment must be prefaced by a warning.]*Question:* What is Rabbi Meir’s azhara ?*Answer:* From the passuk “Everyone else will hear and see, and will not do anything like that”.*Chachamim:* That passuk is to teach us the mitzvah of hachrazah , when witnesses are punished their punishment should be announced.*Rabbi Meir:* Hachrazah is learned from the first half of the passuk. Attached is daf 5 make sure to *print it.* See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
240
*6.1 Makkos Daf 05 A (2 Lines Dn)*
*6.1 Makkos Daf 05 A (2 Lines Dn)*
Jan 13, 2020
8:46:21
*6.1 Makkos Daf 05 A (2 Lines Dn)**Summary**Mishna:* We *divide a money punishment* among the zoimemim but we *do not divide malkos. *If the zoimemim wished to make the accused pay 200 sus, they *each pay 100,* so that the accused receives 200 from the two of them.If, however they wished to inflict 39 lashes ( malkos ) on the accused, they each receive the *full punishment.**Gemara: What’s the source?**Abayye:* All physical punishment ( misah and malkos ) is connected by means of * gezeirah shaveh * ( rasha - rasha ). Just as *there is no halfway measure in capital punishment* , there is no dividing up malkos .*Rava:* Half of the amount of lashes wouldn’t be a *fulfillment of ka’asher zamam. * But *money can be added together.*( *A svara:* Money is restitution, it’s not thrown into the sea, it is given to the accused man. But malkos is only a punishment for the eidim ) See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
241
*6.2 Makkos Daf 05 A (12 Lines Dn)*
*6.2 Makkos Daf 05 A (12 Lines Dn)*
Jan 13, 2020
3:46:25
*6.2 Makkos Daf 05 A (12 Lines Dn)**Summary**Mishna:* Hazamah is only valid when it is directed *against the eidim. *If the contradicting witnesses say that the murder victim was with them at the time it supposedly took place, or that the supposed murderer was with them, it is considered hakchashah and not hazamah (1.1).The same two eidim can be mazim even *a hundred pairs of witnesses.**Rabbi Yehuda:* This is a crooked pair. Eidim are only believed against *the first set* of witnesses. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
242
*6.3 Makkos Daf 05 A (2 lines after spreads)*
*6.3 Makkos Daf 05 A (2 lines after spreads)*
Jan 14, 2020
18:35:55
*6.3 Makkos Daf 05 A (2 lines after spreads)**Summary**Gemara:* What is the source?(That hazamah consists of testimony against the witnesses themselves).*Rav Ada:* The possuk says: *“The witness testified falsely,* he testified falsely”, the first words seem to imply that there is a falsity to the witness himself.*Rabbi Yishmael’s Beis Midrash:* The possuk says: “They testify against him and he falls apart”’. The testimony must be *against him.**Rava:* If witnesses allege that a murder took place on the *east side* of a building. Other witnesses then claim that the first set of witnesses were with them at that time on the *west side* of the building, we check if it is *possible to see through* from the west to the east. If it is impossible, the first set are considered zoimemim .*Challenge:* Isn’t that obvious?*Resolution:* We might be inclined to believe that the first set of witnesses possess extraordinary eyesight. Rava is telling us that we judge by what the *ordinary person can see.* See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
243
*6.4 Makkos Daf 05 A (7 lines after spreads)*
*6.4 Makkos Daf 05 A (7 lines after spreads)*
Jan 15, 2020
21:18:43
*6.4 Makkos Daf 05 A (7 lines after spreads)**Summary**Rava:* If witnesses allege that a murder took place in *Sura* Sunday * morning. * Other witnesses then claim that the first set of witnesses were with them Sunday * evening * in *Neharde’a,* we check if it is *possible to travel* from Sura to Neharde’a within that time frame. If it is impossible, the first set are considered zoimemim. *Challenge:* Isn’t that obvious?*Resolution:* We might be inclined to believe that the first set of witnesses possess special camels; *dromedaries.* Rava is telling us that we judge by *ordinary standards* even though there may be extraordinary possibilities.*Rava:* A & B testify that *C murdered D* on * Sunday. * But E & F testify that A & B were with them on Sunday. Although E & F also testify that *C murdered D* on *Monday; A & B are considered zoimemim * and *receive the death penalty.**Moreover,* even if E & F testify that the murder took place on * Friday, A & B still deserve the death penalty,* because C was not yet convicted. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
244
*6.6 Makkos Daf 05 A (9 Lines Up)*
*6.6 Makkos Daf 05 A (9 Lines Up)*
Jan 17, 2020
10:46:37
*6.6 Makkos Daf 05 A (9 Lines Up)**Summary**Rava:* A & B testify that *C murdered D* on * Sunday. * But E & F testify that A & B were with them on Sunday. Although E & F also testify that *C murdered D* on *Monday; A & B are considered zoimemim * and *receive the death penalty.**Moreover,* even if E & F testify that the murder took place on * Friday, A & B still deserve the death penalty,* because C was not yet convicted.If however in addition to testifying that A & B were with them on Sunday, they also testify that *C was already convicted for murder* on * Friday. * Or even if they claim he was convicted on * Monday (before A & B testified* on Tuesday), A & B are *not put to death.**Knas:* The din is that modeh b’knas pattur - until one is sentenced, he can admit his crime and will be absolved for making any knas payments.Thus the same rule of Rava applies to knas payments. If *A & B testify* that C stole, slaughtered and sold *(geneivah + tevicha umechira* which carries a knas penalty), they must *pay the penalty* when they’re huzam by E & F, even if E & F also accuse C of the * same actions on a different day. *If however, E & F testify that *C was sentenced* before A & B testified (on * Tuesday * ), A & B are not required to pay. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
245
*7.1 Makkos Daf 05 A (Bottom Line)*
*7.1 Makkos Daf 05 A (Bottom Line)*
Jan 19, 2020
8:42:01
*7.1 Makkos Daf 05 A (Bottom Line)**Summary**Mishna* (6.2): The same two eidim can be mazim even a hundred pairs of witnesses. Rabbi Yehuda says this is a crooked pair. Eidim are only believed against the first set of witnesses.*Gemara:* If the witnesses are considered crooked, their words *shouldn’t be accepted against the first set* either!?*Rabbi Avahu:* The mishna refers to a case in which the *first set* was *already put to death.**Challenge:*The mishna is here to teach us halachos, *not to tell us stories* that happened.*Rava:* The mishna’s intention is: If there is *only one set* that is huzam , that’s when the mazimim are believed.*Question:* The mishna speaks of the *first set,* not of *one set* ?*Answer: That’s a good question!* (Something is wrong with the wording of the *mishna* and it needs to be amended).*Story:* A woman brought witnesses who were found to be false. She brought other witnesses who were again found to be false. Finally she brought witnesses who were not found false.*Reish Lakish:* It is already *established that this woman brings false witnesses* and we cannot accept the third testimony.*Rabbi Elazar:* The fact that she is a faker *doesn’t prove that all Jews are fakers* and we must accept the testimony of two kosher Jews.*Another time:* Such a case came before Rabbi Yochanan: *Reish Lakish* repeated his opinion, but *Rabbi Yochanan* countered with Rabbi Elazar’s prior argument. Reish Lakish was upset with Rabbi Elazar for not sharing previously that his source was in fact Rabbi Yochanan. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
246
*7.2 Makkos Daf 05 B (15 Lines Dn)*
*7.2 Makkos Daf 05 B (15 Lines Dn)*
Jan 20, 2020
15:26:29
*7.2 Makkos Daf 05 B (15 Lines Dn)**Summary**Reish Lakish* : It is already *established that this woman brings false witnesses* and we cannot accept the third testimony.*Rabbi Yochanan (and Rabbi Elazar):* The fact that she is a faker *doesn’t prove that all Jews are fakers* and we must accept the testimony of two kosher Jews.*Suggestion:* It would seem that *Reish Lakish* is following *the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda* (6.2 “A crooked pair cannot be relied upon”), and *Rabbi Yochanan* is following *the Chachomim* (ibid. “They can even be mazim one hundred pairs”).*Response:**Reish Lakish* does not necessarily argue with the Chachomim, because *no one brought these mazimim into beis din * - unlike the case of the woman who was the one bringing different sets of false witnesses.*Rabbi Yochanan* does not necessarily argue with Rabbi Yehuda. It is difficult to accept the Chachomim’s view because: Were *all two hundred people* really *with this one set of mazimim? * However in our case, there is nothing in the third testimony indicating that it’s false.*Mishna:* Zoimemim are not *put to death* for testifying against somebody unless he was *already sentenced.* (They’re also not punished if the sentence was carried out already).The Tzedukim refused to punish zoimemim until they had actually caused the *death* of their victim, based on the passuk nefesh b’nefesh - “a life for a life”.*The chachamim argued* from the passuk “Ka’asher zamam laasos l’achiv - As he intended to do to *his brother”* - so it seems that the brother is still around. The verse nefesh b’nefesh teaches that they are not punished until their victim’s “life” was in peril because he was sentenced. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
247
*7.3 Makkos Daf 05 B (7 lines after spreads)*
*7.3 Makkos Daf 05 B (7 lines after spreads)*
Jan 21, 2020
22:09:41
*7.3 Makkos Daf 05 B (7 lines after spreads)**Summary**Gemara: Berebbi* (A great man): If the zoimemim did not kill, they are killed. If they did kill, *they are not killed.**His father:* Isn’t that *illogical?**Berebbi:* You have taught us (he said this to be respectful): *We do not punish based on logic.*This can be learned from a *Beraisa:*“If a man takes his sister the daughter of his father or of his mother” What about a sister who is the daughter of both? The passuk ends “He revealed the ervah of his sister”, this teaches us that even a full sister is also included in the punishment of kareis. Now, isn’t it obvious? What do we need extra words in the passuk for?We learn from here that *We do not punish based on logic,* rather we need the passuk to state it explicitly.*Question:* This passuk teaches us *the punishment* for such a sister, *where is the azhara ?* (see 5.6 for explanation of the term).*Answer:* There is another passuk that follows the same pattern (The daughter of *your father* , or *your mother, your sister * ). This passuk is the azharas lav. This teaches that *“We cannot learn a lav from logic”.* We need an explicit passuk. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
248
*7.4 Makkos Daf 05 B (19 lines Up)*
*7.4 Makkos Daf 05 B (19 lines Up)*
Jan 22, 2020
9:17:22
*7.4 Makkos Daf 05 B (19 lines Up)**Summary**Question:* How do we know that the laws of our mishna (7.2) regarding gemar din apply to the *punishment of malkos * as well?*Answer:* There is a * gezeira shaveh - rasha * (which is written regarding * misah * ) and * rasha * (which is written regarding * malkos * ).*Question:* And how do I know that this applies to the punishment of * galus * (for unintentional murder) as well?*Answer:* There is a * gezeira shaveh - rotzeach * (which is written regarding * murder * ) and * rotzeach * (which is written regarding * unintentional murder * ).*Beraisa:**Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabai* (a head of the Sanhedrin): I wish to see in our national consolation! (although he lived during the time of the bayis sheini , they longed for the return of the shechina like in the bayis rishon ) Because I (and my Sanhedrin) put to death an eid zomeim to disprove the tzedukim who say an eid zomeim is only killed after the person he accused was killed (7.2).(There is a difficulty here, because it seems that he only killed the eid zomeim to disprove the tzedukim, while in reality Sanhedrin has an obligation to judge edim zoimemim ).*Shimon ben Shatach:* You killed a man for nothing! The chachamim clearly say that “ Eidim zoimemim are only put to death if *both* are found to be zoimemim, (and you only found one of them to be a zoimeim ) and they only receive malkos if both are found to be zoimemim ”.Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabai immediately accepted upon himself *not to render any decisions* without running them by *Shimon ben Shatach.* Additionally, *every day he went to the cemetery,* to the grave of the eid he had ordered killed and spread himself out on the grave, and people would hear *a wailing sound* from the cemetery. The people thought it was *the sound of the dead man crying,* but the rabbi told them *it was his voice* (since he had committed a sin that was known to the people, he wanted to let them know he was doing teshuva ), he told them, you’ll see it’s my voice because *as soon as I die, you will no longer hear wailing.**Rav Acha son of Rava* commented to Rav Ashi: *What proof is that?* Once Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabai is in the next world the dead man can take him to the *heavenly court.* Or they can discuss matters and he’ll *be appeased.* See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
249
*7.5 Makkos Daf 05 B (10 lines Up)*
*7.5 Makkos Daf 05 B (10 lines Up)*
Jan 23, 2020
9:59:17
*7.5 Makkos Daf 05 B (10 lines Up)**Summary**Mishna:*It states “A man can be put to death based on the testimony of *two or three* witnesses”. “Three” is *superfluous* , the Torah wrote it in order to compare two to three. Just as we understand that three witnesses can be mazim two; *two can be mazim three* as well.How do I know that this applies *even to a hundred?*The passuk says *“Eidim - witnesses”* (this implies *even many)* .*Rabbi Shimon:* The words *“or three”* teach that just as *both witnesses* need to be huzam in order for the hazamah to be effective (3.2), so to when there are three witnesses, *all three need to be huzam * in order for the hazamah to be effective.How do I know that this applies *even to a hundred?*The passuk says * “Eidim - witnesses” * (this implies *even many* ).*Rabbi Akiva:* The third witness *cannot produce a leniency* for the others. He can only *be punished* together with them.This third witness is completely unnecessary for the plot of the first two zoimemim , and yet, the Torah punishes him with the full punishment. This teaches us that *certainly Hashem will reward* anyone who joins in with others doing a mitzvah. (That’s the big story of Yefes [see Toras Avigdor Parshas Shoftim 2 “The Third Witness”], https://torasavigdor.org/parshas-shoftim-2-the-third-witness/Sheim didn’t need Yefes’ help to cover his father, yet he received a bracha for that). See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
250
*7.6 Makkos Daf 05 B (2 lines Up)*
*7.6 Makkos Daf 05 B (2 lines Up)*
Jan 24, 2020
9:29:05
*7.6 Makkos Daf 05 B (2 lines Up)**Summary**Mishna:*Just as a testimony is invalidated when *one of two* witnesses is found to be a relative or a passul ; it is invalidated even when *one of three* witnesses is found passul . (Even though we have two valid witnesses).[There’s a question of what is the issue here; is it that there were pessulim present at the time of the witnessing? This would be the source for the custom of medakdekim that a chosson singles out two witnesses at the chuppah and tells them “Only you are my witnesses”. Or is the problem that a non-kosher witness testified in beis din but the presence of a relative at a chuppah (for instance) would not invalidate a testimony.].[Another question; can the two kosher ones return on a different date without their third partner and restate their testimony?].How do I know that this applies *even to one of a hundred?*The passuk says * “Eidim” * (this implies *even many* eidim ).*Rabbi Yosi:* The rules set forth in this mishna apply *only to dinei nefashos but in money matters, the testimony* of valid witnesses *is accepted* even after their partner’s testimony has been invalidated.*Rebbi:* The rules apply to any testimony.An additional witness can *only invalidate* the testimony if he indicates his willingness to *participate as a witness* by joining in in the hasra’ah - warning the murderer. But if he did not participate, what can you do if two brothers happened to be present at a crime? See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
More by Rabbi Avigdor Miller
MESILAS YESHARIM. Pairush by Rabbi Avigdor Miller ZTL
MESILAS YESHARIM. Pairush by Rabbi Avigdor Miller ZTL
Rabbi Avigdor Miller
ר' אביגדור מילר
CHESHBON HA NEFESH. Pairush by Rabbi Avigdor Miller ZTL
CHESHBON HA NEFESH. Pairush by Rabbi Avigdor Miller ZTL
Rabbi Avigdor Miller
ר' אביגדור מילר
Toras Avigdor
תורת אביגדור
Rabbi Avigdor Miller
ר' אביגדור מילר
Rabbi Avigdor Miller on Mesillas Yesharim
Rabbi Avigdor Miller on Mesillas Yesharim
Rabbi Avigdor Miller
ר' אביגדור מילר