A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What determines whether conquered land has the sanctity of Eretz Yisrael? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction between ownership (baalut) of land and governmental authority (shlicha) over it. Syria illustrates the tension: even as kibbush yachid it may require terumot u'maasrot (shlicha), yet remain chutz la'aretz for other dinim (no ownership by the nation).
This shiur analyzes Masechta Gittin 2a and develops a fundamental framework for understanding when conquered territory receives the halachic status of Eretz Yisrael. The discussion centers on the Mishna's requirement to say "b'fanai nichtav u'b'fanai nechtam" for gittin from certain locations including Ashkelon, Rekem, Chager, and Akko. Rabbi Zweig begins by presenting Rabbeinu Tam's approach to the Mishna, which distinguishes between different parts of these cities. According to Rabbeinu Tam, Ashkelon was not recaptured by Olei Bavel; Rekem and Chager mentioned in the Mishna refer to cities outside Eretz Yisrael (not the cities with those names inside Eretz Yisrael); and Akko is divided into northern and southern sections, with only the southern portion having the status of Eretz Yisrael.
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.
