No community start suggestion yet.
Can a single witness establish a fact against a chazaka, or does eid echad merely remove doubt? The shiur develops the fundamental machloket between Tosfos and Ramban (רמב"ן): Tosfos holds eid echad creates an assumption (sufficient against safek), while Ramban holds it establishes a legal fact (ne'eman even keneged ischazak isur), particularly when one testifies about oneself.
The shiur analyzes the fundamental principle of eid echad ne'eman biIsurin (a single witness is believed regarding prohibited matters) through the lens of a debate between Tosfos and Ramban (רמב"ן) on Gittin 2b. The Gemara (גמרא) learns that eid echad is believed from the case of nidda, where a woman is believed to say she went to the mikvah and is tahor. Tosfos raises a difficulty: how can we learn from nidda to other cases when nidda involves ischazak isur (an established prohibition), since the woman has a chezkas tumah? Tosfos answers with two points according to the Maharsha's understanding: First, the fact that she previously saw blood does not create a chazaka that she is still seeing blood now—there is no ischazak isur regarding current bleeding. Second, regarding her chezkas tumah, it is "beyado lipol" (in her power to remove it) through immersion in the mikvah. Therefore, this case doesn't really involve ischazak isur, and we cannot learn from it that eid echad would be believed against an ischazak isur.
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 2b
Looking for the full transcript?
Full access is available to members of the TUF Alumni Association or the Yam Hagadol Foundation.
Already a member? Let the admin know!
Dedicate a Shiur in Gemara
L'ilui nishmas a loved one. In honor of a simcha or yahrzeit. As a zechus for a refuah sheleimah. Your dedication helps carry Rabbi Zweig's Torah to learners around the world.
Why does the Gemara present a kal v'chomer for chuppah making kiddushin based on kesef not being maichel b'terumah, only to reject it? The shiur reveals that even the rejected kal v'chomer establishes a fundamental yesod: kiddushin is a kinyan for ishus (marital relationship), not merely a kinyan in hilchos kinyanim. The second kal v'chomer—from chuppah being gomeres—raises Tosafos's famous question.
Is the kesef used in kiddushin a true kinyan (acquisition), or merely a symbolic means of establishing marriage? The shiur analyzes multiple interpretations of the Gemara's derivation from ki yikach ki'ach mi'Sayeffron, exploring whether marriage constitutes ownership, and develops three fundamental approaches: (1) The Gemara proves ishus is a kinyan, (2) ishus is not a kinyan but uses kinyan-like means, or (3) ishus is a kinyan but the kesef may not be a ma'aseh kinyan. The Rambam's position—calling kesef "midivrei sofrim"—is explained as distinguishing between cross-referencing concepts versus borrowing terminology.
Why does the Mishna alternate between the language of "kinyan" (acquisition) and "kiddushin" (sanctification) when describing marriage? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: marriage has two separate aspects—a kinyan dimension (ownership) and a kedusha dimension (sanctified relationship). Either aspect can initiate the bond, and understanding this dual nature resolves multiple textual and halachic questions throughout the sugya.
Does kiddushei shetar require a shevah pruta? The Ran presents two approaches to the Rif's position. The shiur develops the Ran's second pshat that shetar kiddushin functions as a hachnah (exchange) rather than a mere kinyan nesina. This reading has profound implications for isuri hana'ah, mechubar, and the relationship between kesef and shetar.
