Completing Ula's drasha, Lo Ta'aneh

We reviewed Ula's drasha last night (Wednesday night) and put extra effort into understanding the question that prompted the drasha.

Rashi is a little bit cryptic in his comments in Makkot.  After noting that the whole expression והצדיקו etc is extraneous - itself enough to raise a few eyebrows and prompt a drasha - Rashi also seems to say that the pasuk, as is, is misleading:

וכי כל מקום שהצדיקו ב"ד את הזכאי וחייבו את החייב יש מלקות דאתא קרא למיתלי מלקות בוהצדיקו והרשיעו

Rashi seems to say that the problem lies in the implication that every time the Beit din finds someone innocent and another liable, there will be lashes - and this is not true!  Lashes are not always the outcome of a judgement....

Ramban in Sefer Devarim de-emphasizes the Gemara's overt קושיא and instead focuses on the incongruity between the setting of the pasuk, which is a ריב בין אנשים - and the resultant lashes, which seem to imply a trangression between man and G-d.  The incongruity prompted the drasha.

Carlos asked how, according to Ula's drasha, we are to understand the new view of והרשיעו את הרשע - said in the singular...if, after all, there are two edim involved? I pointed out a commentary called the Aruch L'Ner who notes that the original pasuk ועשיתם לו כאשר זמם refers to the edim zomimin in the singular, as well - perhaps because they are conspiring together to incriminate someone else....and so the drasha of Ula is consistent with that style, of referring to this team of zomimin as one...

The Gemara then raises the question as to why it is that Ula had to find such a רמז - hint, if there's a more simple way to prove that the edim of our mishna get lashes - and that is that minimally, once incriminated, they are said to have transgressed the prohibition of issuing false edut.  This, like any other "lo ta'aseh" should mandate lashes in the absence of a specific din - ie the vacuum left by the drashot and lack of ka'asher zamam....the Gemara's answer is that Lo Ta'aneh is a Lo Ta'seh that has no deed (mere dibbur) and therefore is not subject to makkot.  I will review tonight for a couple of minutes what I thought the assumption of the Gemara may have been when it asked the question..

We concluded the shiur with a review of the "give and take"of the Gemara in digital form, back to the start of the sugyah.  I highly recommend doing this in order to map out the sugyahs we encounter, and you encounter, in your learning...

Final shiur of the week tonight, with Chazara on Sunday!