1 | M a k k o s – R . B u c k l e r

Makkos with Rav BucklerShiur #1 – Gerusha V’Chalutza

2 | M a k k o s – R . B u c k l e r

- So we have a machlokes Rishonim:

Rashi / Ritva – חלוצה is לאו דוקא, just as the פסול is דרבנן, there can’t be מלקות דרבנן for the עדים

Rambam (עדות)– seems to say that they’re real 2] .מכות מדאורייתאnd Rambam is just saying that חלוצה is אסורה מדרבנן, nobody is arguing that]

R. Akiva Eiger (תשובות קעט) – Who cares that it’s פסול דרבנן, either way it’s a .לא תענה ברעך עד שקר .and that’s why you get lashes שבועת שוא

- So we need to explain the Rambam?!?

3 | M a k k o s – R . B u c k l e r

Ergo לא תענה by itself should not entail מכות. But the basic question of R. Akiva Eiger is still good, why would מדרבנן not get מכות by עדים זוממין?

There’s a חקירה in Hilchos Teshuvah. Nesivos says that if one violates a איסור דרבנן by accident, no חיוב תשובה. Why not? Every דרבנן is really a דאורייתא because of לא that makes sense if I rebel, but if they told me to do something נתיבות Says the .תסורand I was בשוגג, I didn’t not listen to them – there is no חיוב תשובה.

What’s the lomdus of the נתיבות? What rabbinic law really boils down to – they don’t have their own inner essence. They didn’t create a חפצה של איסור, if a goy handles wine you may not drink it. The wine itself doesn’t entail a different status.

You’re מקדש a woman, is there such a thing as a מקודשת, or is a woman who underwent a מעשה קידושין a woman who has a lot of הלכות about her. Is there really a Maybe it’s just a borrowed term? I can prove such a thing as a ?מקודשת called מציאות there is a status change – something happens to her. Gemara Kiddushin ,מקודשתhas מקדש מכאן ולאחר ל' יום. Starts process today and finishes after 30 days. If we’re talking about הלכות becoming חל – that takes a moment. But if those איסורים come from her becoming something, the change of the woman happens over time. Clearly there is somebody called a מקודשת and a מקודשת has dinim. If you are בועל a מקודשת you are חייב כרת.

Can חז"ל create a status דרבנן – the נתיבות must be saying no. Because if I drank סתם at the end of the day I didn’t drink something with a new status. The Rabbis – יינםdon’t create essential איסורים, they simply place regulations.

Sanhedrin (12b) – Can you be מעבר השנה because Rov Yisroel is טמא? Gemara gets into הותרה בצבור vs. דחויה בצבור, i.e. there’s no טומאה whatsoever, or do we say there is but it’s pushed aside. We’re מעבר mainly to calibrate solar with lunar. Another reason for מועדים. So Gemara discusses if you hold דחויה, then maybe we should make a leap year so that we can bring Korban Pesach not בטומאה. Gemara brings story of Chizkiyahu gave חמץ to כלל ישראל. How? He made a leap year when he saw they were טמא. He had no right to do that. So he had to מבקש רחמים על עצמו. So we see טומאה is not a reason to מעבר. R. Shimon says it is. If that’s the case – what did Chizkiyahu do wrong? Ergo it must be for some other reason he did it – you only adar and he did Nissan, that was the problem. Shmuel says even on the 30th מעברday of Adar it’s too late.

Yad Ramah – This is clearly a איסור דרבנן he was violating.

Yad Ramah then argues with Nesivos. This then argues for חיוב תשובה when violating מדרבנן.

4 | M a k k o s – R . B u c k l e r

Rosh Hashana (21a, Tosefos) –

Basically agrees with Yad Ramah but disagrees in the sense that he says that the .did take affect thought עיבור

5 | M a k k o s – R . B u c k l e r

What’s this have to do with our shiur?

6 | M a k k o s – R . B u c k l e r

Why does the fact that Sukkah being דאורייתא waren’t the use of פסול? Same question vice versa?

Tosefos – פסול is a nasty lashon, but you can’t avoid it when מדאורייתא, or alternatively ימעט is mashma חומרא דרבנן, while פסול is משמא a דאורייתא.

- What’s hesber of the 2nd peshat? Same peshat as above. Since the sukkah is ,דרבנן By .פסולה .it’s intrinsically affected when something is wrong דאורייתאthe מושג of פסול doesn’t really exist, it’s a הוראה.

- The issue is; is there such a thing as status of פסול דרבנן. o How does this affect us? The rule of מכות by עדים זוממין – is because

they were מרשיעה the צדיק, so if they said that he did an עבירה, that brands him a רשע. What is the הרשעה here by calling somebody a בן They gave him a negative status. When you give somebody a ?חלוצה and you did it falsely you get makkos for trying to alter שם בן גרושהstatus. But calling somebody a בן חלוצה, does that change status? Ritva is telling us that there is no such status when it’s דרבנן, ergo it’s not .מהותי does exist, it is פסול דרבנן But Rambam says – a status of .הרשאהThat’s being מרשיעה somebody.

7 | M a k k o s – R . B u c k l e r

Shiur #2 – Eydus Sheyachol L’Hazima

It must be עדות שיכול להזימה? So Tosefos gives answers: since they get malkus, that’s .כאשר זמם is call עדות ergo this ,כאשר זמם

What’s peshat in this Tosefos? How is Malkus as good as כאשר זמם? There are achronim want to say that it’s really what ב: is saying with " והרשיעו את that malkus is as good as גזירת הכתוב The Gemara is establishing a ."...הצדיק .And that’s what Tosefos is saying .כאשר זמם

What’s bothering Tosefos is the following: when witnesses come they need a fear factor looming over them. Without being able to do the same back, what is their fear factor? The Malkus. See the next point with נערה מאורסה. …. So with our מהלך – the only fear factor is one of death (is ultimately they’re trying to bring death).

The "ועוד י"ל" in Tosefos is going back on the first question of Tosefos. Tosefos is saying when do I need עדות שאתה יכול להזימה – only when it can possibly be done in that situation. Since by גרושה וחלוצה it’s not possible, it’s not required.

8 | M a k k o s – R . B u c k l e r

So Tosefos has two answers: מלקות is as good as כאשר זמם - that’s your fear factor. Alternatively, גרושה וחלוצה does not need כאשר זמם.

o Two ways to explain that 2nd answer: 1) עדות שיכול להזימה is not about fear factor, it’s a גזירות הכתוב. The criteria of the גזירת הכתוב is that you need עדות שיכול להזמיה. גרושה וחלוצה is not subject to that criteria. 2) is about the fear factor, but that’s not in existence עדות שיכול להזמימהor not required by גרושה וחלוצה. You only need when it is applicable.

Nodeh Beyehudah - 57,58, Kama – If you have עדי קידושין testifying to not know the זמן of kiddushin – it’s כשר מן התורה. They saw Reuven מקדש Leah, but on דרישה So too in .כשר מן התורה they can’t remember the date. Nonetheless, they are וחקירהa case where two eydim come along and want to forbid her to husband (not to kill her) and to אסור her to her husband, but when asked when it was – they don’t know: .כשר מן התורה

Beis HaLevi (39:11)– and בדיקות וחקירה are דרישה needed .מדאורייתא Derisha V’cakira are 7 questions that involve time as well as location of event. Bedikos refer to facts of the case. Ex. What instrument did Shimon use to kill? If you say you don’t know by וחקירה – דרישה you’re done. By fact) בדיקות checking) – you’re okay. Contradiction is an issue though. The reason why, presumably, they must know the is saying that נודע ביהודה So .עדות שיכול להזימה is because it needs to be דרישה וחקירהsince the witnesses in this case are making an accusation on something that could never bounce back to them – ergo the דרישה וחקירה is no longer taken as seriously, it’s not anyway. Yes עדות שיכול להזימה they must ask the questions, but מדאורייתא they don’t need to have the answers. Beis HaLevi disagrees. How? He found ריב"ש that תשובת the reason why it’s kosher is alts din derabanan, so that it shouldn’t be hard for women to get married. But you see that without that special failure to procure גזירה The ."ודרשת וחקרת היטב" – makes it not good דרישה וחקירה need for בדיקות is not a rule in עדות . You can testify without it. It’s not crucial criteria in the עדות. But, nonetheless, its part of the בית דין process to catch the witnesses. Certain rules applicable to דיינים. So why by דרישה וחקירה is it פסול? It’s crucial criteria in עדות, not to catch them but rather to teach us it ain’t a עדות without it. It’s a גילוי that this is crucial criteria. Ergo who can’t identify location or time, it’s עדי קידושין .עדות in the whole חסר

9 | M a k k o s – R . B u c k l e r

10 | M a k k o s – R . B u c k l e r

W.T.M? What’s the lomdus? o You see in the Beis HaLevi that there is two dinim in :1עדות שיכול להזימה

din that you need עדות שיכול להזימה in order to carry out ,2כאשר זמם nd din that even when you can’t carry out כאשר זמם you need עדות שיכול .עדות nonetheless because without it you don’t have להזימה

o Beis HaLevi is saying like the second peshat we gave in the 2nd answer - when I can’t have the threat then fine I don’t need it. But יכול להזימה still says in place, for that’s a criteria in עדות.

o The Nodeh Beyehudah is arguing that the whole din of יכול להזימה is criteria in what is called עדות. If you don’t have the criteria met then it’s not עדות, unless it’s not applicable. When is it not applicable? When there’s no כאשר זמם.

Meiri brings two opinions whether or not עדות בגרושה וחלוצה needs דרישה וחקירה! (If you say it’s about a threat, you don’t need it by גרושה וחלוצה….) Mistama it’s the same machlokes.

Shiur #3 – גרמי בעדים זוממין

Ramban – Why did they choose גרושה as the case? He would have lost a lot things by losing the כהונה. So if that’s the case – why shouldn’t the עדים pay, they’re causing him to loose מתנת כהונה?

11 | M a k k o s – R . B u c k l e r

(R.B. - In עדות we say "על פי שנים עדים יקום דבר" – there’s the יקום דבר of the עדות, e.g. he’s a חלל, and all else flows from that.) Ramban answers גרמא בעלמא הוא ופטור, חדא דלא בריא הזיקיה בדיני דגרמי. ועוד, דליכא דדאין דינא דגרמי אלא בשגרם הפסיד, אבל זה לא גרם .הפסד כלום שהרי אינו בן גרושה על פיהם

What’s peshat? Beis Din won’t מחייב גרמא but you are חייב לצאת לידי שמים. גרמי is related but different. גרמי is a little more direct. גרמי you can be forced to pay in Beis Din. But you’re only חייב on it if it’s ברי הזיקא. So for ex. if you drop somebody’s dish from the 10th floor – you’re a מזיק. If you drop it over a cushion, but somebody removes the cushion, that’s גרמא.

- So what is Ramban saying here with גרמא, גרמי, מזיק, this has nothing to do with it – this is עדות? כאשר זמם assumes a direct cause and effect. Even if this isn’t the rule of גרמא, the concepts are the same. It’s not clear that what you wanted to do would happen – i.e. that’s not ברי היזיקא. It’s not ברור that’s he going to lose תרומה, could be nobody is going to offer him anything. Could be nobody would’ve asked him to do פדיון הבן. So that’s first answer in the Ramban.

- Now onto the 2nd: what does it mean? Had the עדות been carried through it would have done damage? All achronim leave this answer צע"ג.

12 | M a k k o s – R . B u c k l e r

o We need to understand a little better the difference between גרמי and That means a person does an .מעשה היזק always contains a מזיק. מזיקaction, the action is what causes the היזק. The throwing of the baseball is the מעשה היזק. In גרמא\גרמי there is no מעשה היזק. So what is it? He does an action which is מתייחס to another event that does do the היזק. You are חייב בגרמי when you are connected to that event. E.g. it happened through you. By עדים זוממין it says "לעשות", it needs a מעשה that causes a מעשה היזק. Your עדות needs an עשייה like a change of status. The lack of him receiving Terumah is גרמא because it’s מתייחס back to the עדים but that wasn’t the direct result of their מעשה היזק. The they didn’t cause it, but they are ,עשיית הפסד תרומה is not a עדותresponsible for it happening. So Ramban is saying the drasha is לעשות requiring a עשייה, it needs to be the מעשה היזק. Ergo no כאשר זמם. And what about גרמי? Nothing was caused here as they were caught before it happened. The only way to punish people before it happened is alts !לעשות and as we just said, that’s tied into ,כאשר זמם

Ramban then goes for a third answer: If you’re not going to take the חלל part of their עדות and give it to them, you can’t take the מפסיד ממון part either. Why? Because to the children we’re not going to hold you responsible for the הפסד ממון, ergo we can’t hold you responsible for the הפסד to him. You don’t do it לחצאין.

- But it’s not זממה לחצאין, you were only מעיד on the father? You only intended to ruin him? So R. Shmuel Rozovsky says he doesn’t know peshat in this Ramban. Rav Buckler says he does. The source is "ועשיתם לו כאשר זמם" – לו ולא for the children because that’s a מחויב Meaning: you should have been .לזרעו of what you’re doing, but the drasha says keep it to 1st generation. So תוצאהbecause of the pasuk it doesn’t go further. But the truth is, contained in the that held דרשה is incriminating words that will hurt the kid (it’s only this עדותit back). Ergo it is עדות לחצאין.

- See next question in Ramban. That case they’re only getting מקצת? איכא that it’s not comparable….They’re trying to mess her over, so they למימרwould also get a bit messed over. But by father and son – they’re only getting one individual. To be כאשר זמם all affected parties need to be compensated in the כאשר זמם, otherwise it’s לחצאין.

Further in the Ramban (see טרפה part). A טרפה who kills is patur because גברא get punished….. The reason why they don’t get עדים זוממין So why don’t .קטילאlashes is because they weren’t doing anything in their עדות.

This Ramban is disagreeing with our תוספות. Tosefos has simple answer to this נפש בנפש, whenever there’s עדות to kill, malkus is not sufficient.

Ramban is saying there has to be a הרשעה, they didn’t do anything to him, he’s a dead man. There was no הרשעה in their עדות. Ergo no חיוב עדים זוממין.

13 | M a k k o s – R . B u c k l e r

Meiri –

The problem with this Meiri is that it’s a mefuresh Gemara in Kesuvos that by עדים you get זוממין ולא מלקות .ממון Meiri here claimed ליה and קם but מלקות no pay. Fakert?! The answer to me seems as follows: On Makkos 2b we have "והצדיקו את What does .לאו שאין בו מעשה Gemara says it’s a ?לא תענה why not just use , "הצדיקgemara exactly intend with the drasha "והצדיקו את הצדיק"? Does it mean really לא to teach you that when it’s a גזירות הכתוב and ergo comes ,לאו שאין בו מלקות is a תענהcase of והצדיקו the לא תענה would get malkus? Or does it mean – no malkus for לא " N”M – If you learn that ?כאשר זמם period. But here there’s alternative called תענה then the gemara in kesuvos is saying a big thing. Every לא תענה in גילוי is a "והצדיקו and then ,כאשר זמם He did two things – 1 for .לא תענה ought to get malkus for ע"זlashes for .לא תענה Comes along the gemara and says since we don’t get two punishments ever, so comes drasha יד ביד showing you here you get ממון. That’s all well and good if והצדיקו is a giluy in לא תענה. But if you learn it’s a new גזירת הכתוב that when you can’t do you get lashes. Then the gemara there has no ,כאשר זמם meaning. If you’re paying already, you’re not going to get lashes. Ergo that gemara in כתובות must be going like ר"ל who holds לאו שאין בו מעשה lokin alav. The Meiri has just told us that he holds like the 2nd צד. "ולא משום לא תענה שהרי לאו שאין בו מעשה הוא .Ergo the lashes always takes precedence ."...אלא ממה שנאמר

Shiur #4 – מזיד הייתי

14 | M a k k o s – R . B u c k l e r

(See summary at the end to clarify)

Through the eydus of the eidim, they’re trying to mechayiv somebody to get galus. But we hear nothing about what the person responds. If the person would agree with them – is the din that he goes to galus? Also, is a person golel al pi atzmo? Presumably in this Tosefos, he’s denying it. But Tosefos is saying in his question the guy could have said “meyzid hayisi” – so then what is he really saying? Also, how would he be ne’eman in saying “meyzid hayisi”- 2 eydim come and say x, you can’t contradict them. He wouldn’t have been believed with that? (This latter question is asked by R. Shmuel Rozovsky)

R. Shmuel Rozovsky (one of 3 Roshei Yeshivos in Ponovich)– What’s the yesod of his ne’emanuso here? A person is believed to mechayiv himself a korban because “eid echad neeman beisurin”. But this is nefashos? Based on Sanhedrin 29a - there is something called “ne’emanos baal davar” when someone is being accused by nefashos we see instances of a tayna baal davar. Meaning (R. Buckler clarifying): everybody has a basic ne’emanos, but just because we believe you it doesn’t mean we’re going to pasken based on what you say. Ergo here where eydim come forward and say they saw him kill. He may have no believability to reject that claim but he does have ne’emanos to define the level of intent.

Maharsha – What is Tosefos asking – he can’t say מזיד הייתי because we know אין where he is believed to say חלב But there’s a case of eating ?!?אדם משים עצמו רשע he’ll have to bring a שוגג That’s because he knows that if he stays a ?מזיד הייתיkorban, and that would be bringing חולין לעזרה, so saying מזיד הייתי is to avoid the .איסור

- So maybe here we accept his מזיד הייתי because he wants to bring a korban pesach, or he doesn’t want to have to kill the גואל הדם, etc.

R. Buckler – But there’s a deeper answer here. Rashi in כתובות explains אין אדם seems to say the same (9b) סנהדרין Rashi in .כי אדם קרוב אצל עצמו alts משים עצמו רשעthing.

15 | M a k k o s – R . B u c k l e r

The case of the חלב – there are 2 witnesses saying to him אכלת חלב. Since you have two witnesses saying it – he’s coming בתורת עד אחד to testify upon himself. But in our case in makkos, this is not עדות, this is טענת בעל דבר. Relatives being an issue is only by עדות. But by a טענת בעל דבר – obviously no such issue. What Rabbi Buckler is saying is that there’s no כלל that a person can’t turn themselves into a רשע. It’s more an issue that witnesses can’t be related.

So when Rav Shmuel Rozovsky asked – where is his נאמנות here coming from – it’s coming not alts עדות but alts טענת בעל דבר. Tosefos is actually referring to טענינן להו. Beis Din will at times get him to say something to avoid the capital punishment. They are טוען for him.

So Tosefos is wondering how עדים could ever מחייב somebody גלות. So see Tosefos answer in Makkos – they saw רגליים דבר. What’s the answer? The עצם עדות itself contain within it an indication that the act was שוגג. To then say מזיד הייתי is contradicting עדים. He has believability to clarify, but this wouldn’t be clarifying this would be altering.

So Tosefos then says based on this a שונא should also go to galus (halacha is – see Makkos 9b – שונא doesn’t go).

What’s Tosefos asking here? Even if he’s a שונא, why would he suddenly be believed by מזיד הייתי?

Beis Lechem Yehudah – Also, the whole question doesn’t make sense to begin with- because the Mishnah in 9b, the guy is admitting to do it בשוגג. But the point is we still don’t believe him because he’s a שונא and we assume he’s מזיד.

Let’s explain: What’s the case of שונא אינו גולה?

16 | M a k k o s – R . B u c k l e r

Tosefos Shantz (2a) – The whole reason why he’s not גולה is davka because he’s נאמן to say מדעת הרגתי. (Shows you Beis Lechem Yehudah disagrees with Rishonim).

- So our Tosefos is drawing a distinction. In a case where there is רגליים לדבר and we want to פטור them – it seems regular אוהב isn’t believed to say מזיד is. And ergo Tosefos wonders why should this be? Tosefos שונא but ,הייתיanswers that a שונא is the abnormal case. For the aberration case there is no .עדות

To review: we started out by pointing out this whole Tosefos is all about a case of where 2 עדים are מחייב somebody גלות (and meaning he is disagreeing with them). He only can say: 1) ,2לא הרגתי ) nothing, 3) מזיד הייתי. The case here is where the guy said "לא הרגתי" . So Tosefos asked why can’t he say מזיד הייתי? On that we had a couple questions, but primarily why would he be believed with that claim? To that we responded that everybody has a base line level of נאמנות, and certainly when he’s just coming to clarify and not alter, he will be believed. And then we asked but טענת but this is עדות To that we said that’s only a problem by ?אין אדם משים עצמו רשעמיגו because no) מיגו We then argued that this Tosefos is not suggesting a .בעל דבר is helping him offer. Tosefos ב"ד that the טענה but rather it’s the (במקום עדיםanswers his question by saying רגליים לדבר. Ergo a claim of מזיד הייתי will end not being a clarifier but a contradiction of עדות, and that we won’t accept. So Tosefos asks next – why then does the שונא not go to גלות? Meaning: if the case is that רגליים in these cases was only עדות – Rather ?שונא נאמן so then why is שוגג that it was לדברby the normal case, i.e. the אוהב. But regarding the שונא – the עדים have made no statement.

Shiur #5 - תוספות ד"ה כל הזוממין מקדימין

17 | M a k k o s – R . B u c k l e r

See opening questions of the Gemara. See how Rashi has a slight Girsa change. See Rashi התם קאי. Also see Rashi חוץ מזוממי בת כהן.

Now let’s see Tosefos:

See Tosefos question. Aruch Laner suggests an answer: see there.

18 | M a k k o s – R . B u c k l e r

But Tosefos gives an answer. The ר"י is saying מקדימין means that you give them the מיתה but if you can’t – give any ,נידון which they were attempting to do to the מיתהpossible.

Tosefos asks on ר"י a קשה. The Gemara in Sanhedrin tells us that the הלכה by רוצח is that if you can’t kill him with סקילה, you kill him any way you can. [If the Torah is telling you the Halacha is true in one place, we assume it’s true across the board, unless something blocks that. A פירכא would block it]. So here there’s no פירכא. But we have a similar idea is learned by a גואל הדם (he can kill any way), ergo is something is learned in two places it excludes us from learning to all other places? And so too וכן קשה there’s a Tosefta that says מפורש that עדים זוממין whom you can’t kill with the מיתה appropriate for them – you can kill them any way you want. And that’s learned ובערת הרע בקרבך – but why should be if we have שני כתובים הבאים כאחד, ergo limiting that rule? (So who is Tosefos asking on in this question - this Tosefta seems to support the ר"י, funny he brings it in this way, so his question is on Sanhedrin? Also the Tosefta seems to answer the question itself – there’s a pasuk: (ובערת הרע מקרבך

Maharam – To the last question about "ובערת", you have to say Tosefos understood that this pasuk wasn’t a דרשה גמורה. So Tosefos’s question returns.

Maharsha – Has a different girsa, which would actually make Tosefos’s question a solid question:

- The rishonim seem to have this girsa of the Maharsha. Okay onto Tosefos’s answer: ותירץ ר' יוסף: the Gemara in Sanhedrin is saying kill em any way you want. While the Tosefta is limiting that to the other 3 out of 4 ד' מיתות.

19 | M a k k o s – R . B u c k l e r

- The problem now is that R. Yosef doesn’t seem to answer the ר"י!? The ר"י according to Tosefos stays shver.

Tosefos Shantz and Tosefos HaRid – are מדוייק like we just said.

Q: So what’s peshat in the ר"י?

Introduction: Ramban (ספר המצוות) – All the different forms of carrying out מיתה are variations of ובערת הרע בקרבך. Yes Torah specified. But ובערת הרע is the fundamental from among you. Ergo if you can’t do it in way x, way רע You should destroy the .יסודy will be acceptable.

- The truth is that the word ובערת הרע appears a lot. I have a גזירת הכתוב by רוצח that I can kill him any way I can (even beyond 4): לחקור :יש is that an expansion of .Or no, the Torah did not expand beyond the 4 ways ?ובערת Rather it was saying something else – the is a רוצח and ergo you ,גברא רע must eliminate him. Meaning, it’s not a new form of מיתה, but there’s a דין in the גברא to eliminate him.

- By עדים זוממין there weren’t just trying to kill Fred, they also wanted to give him a שם רע. Then in doing it back to them you need to also make them .רע Their evil is lying .עד זומם is רע are held accountable because their עדים זוממיןabout somebody in court. The punishment varies but the is always the רע same. The רע they did does not change based on specific case. So with ר"י it comes full circle. If you’re going to tell me that a רוצח is called רע, then you have to say עדים זוממין ברוצח are also רע. But what did they do to be רע? Lied. Ergo since it’s the same all over – you can kill them any way you please. We’re learning from רוצח. If he’s רע – and if so – רע ergo are also עדים זוממין you can now learn to all עדים זוממין.

- Our Tosefos is rejecting that peshat, because he holds like the other צד. We have a limud that broadens the definition of ,ובערת not only are there 4 עדים זוממין .s, but now you can do it any other way. There’s a lot of ways’מיתה if you can’t do with ,סקילה is give them עונש their – עונש have the same רוצחthat, then give them any other. But that has nothing to do with עדים זוממין בכל .התורה כולה

20 | M a k k o s – R . B u c k l e r

Shiur #6 - ג' דרגות בכאשר זמם

2 drashos at beginning of Tosefos: 1) The בועל gets different מיתה from ,עדים2אשה ( get זוממין instead of what they were trying to give to the חנק See Tosefos .בת כהן question. Read through rest of Tosefos. was ר"י on the matter) מסופק בהאי מילתא when there’s no בועל). Finish Tosefos.

Now onto Rashi:

Look how Rashi expressed "והזוממין משכימין למיתה שחייבו את הבועל".

Rambam (20:10) –

21 | M a k k o s – R . B u c k l e r

Look how the Rambam set this up.

Radvaz –

See his question near the end. And then his answer. The הו"א is they should get the more חמור one, and then in his conclusion they get the more קל one.

It seems we have ourselves a Tosefos is saying .מחלוקת ראשונים get ע"ז חנק even if there is no בועל. Rashi and Rambam seem to say חנק only if there’s a .שריפה then they should get ,בת כהן but if there’s just a ,בועל

R’B: Tosefos is saying that the din of ע"ז on a בת כהן isn’t כאשר זמם. There’s a special here that you get something else. Eventhough חידוש were ע"ז מחייב According to .כאשר זמם It’s a suspension of the din .חנק they’re getting ,שריפהRashi, it’s not a substitute. It is כאשר זמם. The chiddush is that they’re getting a lesser form of what they were זומם לעשות.

Rabbi Buckler wants to suggest something:

Makkos (4b) – Gemara inquires about the לאו "לא תענה".

We saw previously a drasha on 2b "והצדיקו את הצדיק"…. And we laid out a חקירה:

Does it mean really is a לא תענה to גזירות הכתוב and ergo comes ,לאו שאין בו מלקות teach you that when it’s a case of והצדיקו the לא תענה would get malkus? Or does it mean – no malkus for לא תענה period. But here there’s alternative called כאשר זמם.

Meiri (וי"מ) – seems to say like 2nd צד.

22 | M a k k o s – R . B u c k l e r

- But what’s Rashi’s peshat?

The עונש is for כאשר זמם and not לא תענה! The don’t is לא תענה, the punishment (the glue) is כאשר זמם. So this is like מאירי.

Let’s look at the גמרא (2a) very carefully.

- כאשר זמם

23 | M a k k o s – R . B u c k l e r

- And some don’t get כאשר זמם at all.

If you hold like תוספות – that even if the עדים are only מחייב בת כהן שריפה, and they get חנק, is there any כאשר זמם at all?

If you go like Rashi there is a albeit not the same magnitude but still ,כאשר זמם something. Rashi is saying any עונש the ע"ז get is a form of כאשר זמם. "והצדיקו" is an alternative to כאשר זמם.

Level 1: מעיד on guy that he’s רוצח > full fledged כאשר זמם

Level 2: מעיד on בת כהן > partial כאשר זמם

Level 3: בן גרושה ובן חלוצה > alternative to כאשר זמם.

According to Tosefos it’s going to fit nicely too. The case of full fledged ע"ז is a case where ע"ז got ועשיתם לו כאשר זמם. The 2nd case is where they’re being punished with something else, and it’s in place of כאשר זמם. Torah is providing an alternative עונש to כאשר זמם. But even בן גרושה בן חלוצה is not an alternative to כאשר זמם– but rather it’s והרשיעו, pure malkos.

Level 1: מעיד on guy that he’s רוצח > full fledged כאשר זמם

Level 2: מעיד on בת כהן > alternative to כאשר זמם

Level 3: ובן חלוצה Nothing to do with < בן גרושה Separate source and .כאשר זמם concept.

New point – very hard Tosefos:

Something with this Tosefos. Doesn’t read well. Use this Ritva to read Tosefos. See inside.

24 | M a k k o s – R . B u c k l e r

The way he wants to read Tosefos is: 1st question Gemara was asking was כיצד העדים doesn’t mean how do you נעשה זוממין doesn’t make sense. Rather, maybe נעשים זוממןcatch them as עדים זוממין…..see inside Ritva

Shiur #7 - מצרי שני

25 | M a k k o s – R . B u c k l e r

See – ולא לזרעו. Rashi.

Ritva – What’s הו"א? In theory a קנס of such a matter that only sticks did him could have been conceived of.

Tosefos –

Maharsha – Basic problem he points to:

Okay, achronim deal with this.

Tosefos (back to Tosefos) – see his answer to his question. It would affect his wife.

Ritva – asks Tosefos question.

26 | M a k k o s – R . B u c k l e r

Ritva argues that the wife doesn’t make or break. Tosefos needs wife to be protected as well.

R. Akiva Eiger – But I have a case for Tosefos according to R. Yossi a מצרי שני doesn’t hurt the wife?

Meiri – Answers the question. Because this also ruins his father.

- What does he mean? How will this ruin the father? o R. Buckler – We are conferring a status (label) of ,יחוס and ergo if

you’re calling him a מצרי שני you are in essence calling the father a מצרי also. But the Ritva seems to understand a bit differently. It’s not a status conferral but rather it’s a imposing of dinim. Dinim you can do to one and not the other. There might be a N”M here. מצרי שני is פסול If in theory the .לבוא בקהל became a ע"ז – מצרי שני can they marry a Perhaps if ?מצרי שני it’s a transfer of dinim we would say no. We’re giving him chumrus not but if it’s a transfer of status perhaps ,קולות yes.

What if you have case where father claims to be מצרי שני and son claims to be מצרי What’s the din? You’re .מצרי שני and say to the son – no, you are עדים come – שלישיnot going to pasul the father here!? This is the question of the רד"ל.

R. Buckler – First of all, this might not be allowed because you’re making the din on the father more strict. Additionally - לכאורה, though – according to Ritva were it’s transferring halachos then לכאורה this would be fine.

:ב

27 | M a k k o s – R . B u c k l e r

Shiur #8 -ומה הסוקל אינו נסקל

Ritva – Bar Pada isn’t coming to argue, he’s coming to .R מחזק Yehoshua. Or alternatively, he’s coming to argue.

This 2nd pesht in the Ritva is with לשיטתו what we said yesterday. Why? (Review of yesterday: But the Ritva seems to understand a bit differently. It’s not a status conferral but rather it’s a imposing of dinim. Dinim you can do to one and not the other.) It’s conceivable that the dinim can be put on one and not the other. Tosefos, then, must agree with first peshat in the Ritva.

28 | M a k k o s – R . B u c k l e r

See Rashi "ומה הסוקל אינו נסקל". See Tosefos as well. See Ritva below:

29 | M a k k o s – R . B u c k l e r

Went back to the numerous questions of Tosefos.

How did Rashi understand this ק"ו of the Gemara? Of course, he would say, that ק"ו isn’t so. Rather, it’s a pasuk. But that pasuk together with the ק"ו is to us a מגלה tremendous יסוד about עדים זוממין. Let’s say ב"ד acts on the עדות and kills שמעון, then it turns out they lied – that is obviously worse than when it didn’t go through. The fact that this isn’t ק"ו true, proves the opposite. It shows you that is הבא לסקל WORSE than הסוקל. How can that be? We’ll get to that later. But that’s what the ק"ו proves. Ergo the ק"ו by חילול is also inadmissible.

Ramban – "ועשיתם לו כאשר זמם...ובערת הרע בקרבך" – Devarim 19:19 – The reason why if the pesak din is carried out false witnesses don’t get killed is because the פסק of the עדים is based upon the decree of G-d. (This fits with Rashi’s yesod.)

Shiur #9 -

Reviewed our peshat in Rashi yesterday.

Go back to Tosefos – Shitas Rabbeinu Tam.

Ramban – Basically says like our sugya at first. But he doesn’t like Rashi’s peshat. He then goes al derech Rabbeinu Tam….What will they get? Nothing. And then he gives a 2nd peshat – you give him sayif.

30 | M a k k o s – R . B u c k l e r

2 opinions in the Ramban: do we say that since they don’t sekilah they get nothing, or is it that they get sayif. W.T.M? The 1st tzad is saying that since you don’t get כאשר זמם, there’s no room for סקילה. The other side is saying – okay maybe no כאשר זמם, but still it’s a כאשר זמם of סייף.

So what’s really the issue here? We brought a Ramban in Sefer Hamitzvos in a previous shiur. See Shiur #5 - Introduction: Ramban (ספר המצוות) – All the different forms of carrying out Yes Torah specified. But .ובערת הרע בקרבך are variations of מיתהis ובערת הרע the fundamental .יסוד You should destroy the רע from among you. Ergo if you can’t do it in way x, way y will be acceptable. Or, you can say alternatively: A person who is chayiv sekilah or סייף, if you give one of the other forms of מיתת ,ב"ד it is a sufficient replacement for that which the Torah proscribed. Those are the 2 צדדים.

What’s N”M? If it’s a secondary form, then in case where Torah proscribed primary form, then secondary will step in. But if it’s replacement then it assumes a basic chiyuv missa to begin with. That is what these 2 opinions in the Ramban is getting at. 1 צד is saying that if based on Kal V’chomer I know he’s patur from סקילה, fine, no סקילה, but secondary forms of are ובערת still there. On the other hand, if the kal v’chomer teaches me that I’m patur on the primary form than no replacement can step in.

31 | M a k k o s – R . B u c k l e r

Rashi (bottom of עמוד א) –

כהן נושא גרושה

Rabbeinu Chananel –

It’s referring to אלמנה לכה"ג.

Why would Rabbeinu Chananel choose אלמנה כה"ג?

This is part of a much more basic discussion:

What does that mean מחוללות? They’re not ראוי לכהונה.

Rashi here is saying that he is מחלל her. Up until today she was able to marry a כהן.

Rambam is saying that there’s two – here לאוין and לא יקח לא יחלל. לא יקח needs קידושין. The ביאה comes with a לקיחה.

o Raavad says this is against logic. This machlokes Rambam and Raavad is really our machlokes

Rashi vs. Rabbeinu Chananel. Rashi is saying like Raavad. Rabbeinu Channanel is like the Rambam.

32 | M a k k o s – R . B u c k l e r

Rashi understands you are being for him it’s about the loss of ,מחלל .קדושת כהונה Ergo it had to be .עדים כהנים Ritva (at beginning of sugya) understands it as a downgrading, not necessarily a loss of כהונה ,קדושת for him the example in the mishnah didn’t need to be a Kohen.

Vort on Vayelech –

See 31:16-18.

Ramban – These pesukim are talking about There will .עקבתא דמשיחא be הרהורי And we would expect G-d to get excited. But pasuk says He will hide his face .תשובהstill. Why? Because people are still turning to other gods.

What’s peshat? Hashem wants to be right away, but He needs extra מרחם effort to hold back. Why? Because there’s still turning to other gods. Meaning: there’s a time when terrible events happen but that indicates that Hashem is standing right behind them. Suddenly a comes on. But there’s הרהורי תשובה still one point missing: despite that ,הרהורי there’s still a .elsewhere פניה Obama gave a great speech so we’re okay. Obama is upset so we’re in trouble.