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.
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.
