No community start suggestion yet.
Is eid echad in isurim establishing a halachic fact, or merely a presumption sufficient to remove safek d'Oraisa l'chumra? The shiur contrasts the Ramban (רמב"ן)'s approach (eid echad establishes fact) with Tosfos (eid echad creates presumption, not certainty). The Rambam (רמב"ם)'s treatment in two separate perakim reveals that eidus-based eid echad differs fundamentally from the isurim case, which may not be eidus at all.
This shiur addresses a fundamental machloket in understanding the nature of eid echad ne'eman b'isurin. According to the Ramban (רמב"ן)'s approach presented earlier, eid echad in isurim establishes a fact (din d'vaday). This allows eid echad to negate a chezkas isura when combined with certain conditions: it must involve yado (the witness's own action making it less valuable), the witness must be ne'eman on himself, or the chezkas isura must not be applicable. In contrast, Tosfos understands eid echad ne'eman b'isurin not as establishing fact but as creating a presumption—enough to remove the din of safek d'Oraisa l'chumra without being an absolute fact. There is no safek requiring stringency, but neither is there certainty. The shiur then analyzes the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s presentation in Hilchos Eidus. In Perek Hei, the Rambam states that no din can be decided based on eid echad, neither in capital cases nor monetary cases, citing "lo yakum eid echad b'ish." The Rambam lists two exceptions where the Torah (תורה) explicitly accepts eid echad: sotah, eglah arufah, and eidus on death (isha). He adds that wherever eid echad is effective, even a woman or pasul witness is valid, except for shevuah, which requires a witness who is "ra'ui l'tzaref" (fit to join with another). Logically, the Rambam should have mentioned eid echad ne'eman b'isurin in this perek as another exception to the two-witness requirement. Instead, he places it much later in Perek Yud Alef, halacha (הלכה) zayin, stating that eid echad is believed regarding isurim even if the witness is pasul for other eidus, such as a woman who forgot her shechitah being believed to say "I slaughtered properly." However, one who is chashud on a matter cannot testify about it, though he can testify about other matters.
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.
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.
