A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When is a single witness believed against an established presumption (chazaka)? The Gemara (גמרא) limits eid echad's testimony where there is ischazik isur, but Tosafot develops a critical chakira: does biyodo (the ability to have fixed the situation) strengthen the witness's credibility, or does it weaken the chazaka itself? Three levels of biyodo emerge—from immediate ability, to past opportunity, to likely achievement—each raising fundamental questions about the basis of witness credibility.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental sugya in Gittin 2a concerning the parameters of eid echad (single witness) testimony. The Gemara (גמרא) establishes that while an eid echad is generally believed in certain contexts, there is a limitation: an eid echad is not believed kineged ischazik isur (against an established presumption of prohibition). The question arises: when exactly is a witness believed, and what is the role of "biyodo" (literally "in his hand"—the ability to have rectified the situation)? Rashi (רש"י) brings four examples where eid echad is believed: hafrashas terumah (separating tithes), shechita (ritual slaughter), and nikur hagid vachelev (removing forbidden fats and the sciatic nerve). The Gemara challenges this from the principle that eid echad is not believed kineged ischazik isur. Rashi responds that in some of these cases, the witness is believed because it's "biyodo"—he had the ability to fix the situation himself.
Looking for the full summary?
Full access is available to members of the TUF Alumni Association or the Yam Hagadol Foundation.
Already a member? Let the admin know!
Gittin 2a
Looking for the full transcript?
Full access is available to members of the TUF Alumni Association or the Yam Hagadol Foundation.
Already a member? Let the admin know!
Dedicate a Shiur in Gemara
L'ilui nishmas a loved one. In honor of a simcha or yahrzeit. As a zechus for a refuah sheleimah. Your dedication helps carry Rabbi Zweig's Torah to learners around the world.
When an animal damages crops, the Torah prescribes a unique payment formula based on multiplying the damaged area by sixty. Does this formula redefine the actual loss, or does it merely create a payment mechanism that still acknowledges the full damage sustained? The Gemara explores whether someone who ate in doubt should pay the higher-quality amount, examining how the principle of motzi me-chaveiro alav haraya applies when payments fall within the range of actual loss.
What makes testimony valid when different witnesses testify to different parts of the same event? The Gemara debates whether the principle of "davar v'lo chatzi davar" (complete testimony, not partial) disqualifies witnesses who testify separately to theft and slaughter. Rashi's approach reveals that the issue is not merely combining elements, but whether each witness's statement is independently meaningful.
Why is a ganav who sells a stolen animal on Shabbos exempt from the fourfold/fivefold payment? The shiur analyzes whether this exemption stems from kam lei b'derabbah or from the absence of a valid mechira. The Rashba's principle that matana resembles mechira when it is "nishtarish b'chet" is explored, along with the Rambam's position on hekdesh and the distinction between giving to bedek habayis versus mizbe'ach.
When a ganav shechts a stolen animal l'avodah zarah, why isn't he patur from payment since it's already isur hana'ah? The shiur explores the fundamental machloket Rashi-Tosafot on whether the isur derives from the act of shechita or from the din shechita itself. The Gemara's application of davar garem be'mamon ke'mamon domi extends the analysis to when borrowed animals become niskal.
