No community start suggestion yet.
How does ed echad work for tumah when the Torah (תורה) normally requires two witnesses? The shiur develops that kinuy and stirah with ed echad functions because it creates raglayim l'davar - together they constitute valid edus on tumah, even without direct eyewitness testimony of the forbidden act.
This shiur examines Gemara (גמרא) Kesubos 9a's discussion of the sotah process, specifically addressing the complex interplay between kinuy (warning), stirah (seclusion), and ed echad (single witness) for tumah. The central question revolves around how a single witness can be believed regarding tumah when the Torah (תורה) typically requires two witnesses for testimony. Rabbi Zweig analyzes the dispute between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) regarding the mechanics of this halacha (הלכה). Rashi explains that ed echad works because when combined with kinuy and stirah, it creates raglayim l'davar (circumstantial evidence) that establishes she was mezanah. The kinuy and stirah provide the foundation, and the ed echad adds sufficient proof to make it like proper edus. This is compared to cases where witnesses see yichud (seclusion) for kiddushin, which is considered as if they witnessed the actual biah.
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!
Kesubos 9a
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.
