No community start suggestion yet.
Why is a single witness believed against an established status when it's within his power (biyado) to effect the change? The shiur analyzes the debate between the Taz and Shach on whether biyado strengthens the witness's credibility or weakens the presumption of prohibition, with implications for how we understand the entire framework of eid echad in issur.
This shiur presents a fundamental analysis of the principle of eid echad (single witness) in matters of issur (prohibition), focusing on the mechanism of biyado (within one's power). Rabbi Zweig explores three distinct approaches to understanding why a single witness is generally not believed against a chazaka (established status), but is believed in certain circumstances. The first approach, attributed to the Taz, holds that the core problem with accepting a single witness against a chazaka is that one witness cannot be matir an issur (permit something prohibited). This is fundamentally an issue of testimony—the Torah (תורה) requires two witnesses to remove a prohibition. According to this view, biyado works because when something is within the person's power to do, they are considered a "baal hama'aseh" (party to the deed itself), not merely a witness. Their statement represents the facts of the case itself, similar to how the Rosh describes it in monetary law where the facts speak for themselves.
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.
