No community start suggestion yet.
The Gemara (גמרא) defines Eretz Yisrael boundaries—north of Akko and south of Ashkelon are chutz la'aretz. But if Ashkelon appears in Tanach as conquered Eretz Yisrael, why does the Mishna treat it as outside? Rabbeinu Tam distinguishes territorial Eretz Yisrael (which Ashkelon and Akko retain eternally through chazakah of olei Bavel) from kedushas ha'aretz (kedushah shniyah via kedushas peh, which these border cities lack). The shiur traces this chakira through Tosfos, Rif, Rambam (רמב"ם), and the Ri.
The shiur opens with the Mishna in Gittin 2a which delineates the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael for the halacha (הלכה) of lafnei pnai lafnei pnai: from Akko north is chutz la'aretz, from Ashkelon south is chutz la'aretz, and from Rekem east is chutz la'aretz. Tosfos immediately challenges this: pesukim in Sefer Yehoshua and Sefer Shoftim explicitly state that Ashkelon was conquered by Yehoshua and was part of Eretz Yisrael. How can the Mishna classify it as chutz la'aretz? Rabbeinu Tam answers that while Ashkelon indeed had the kedusha rishonah of olei Mitzrayim, that kedushah was kitzu leshayta—it was nullified when Klal Yisrael went into galus. When the olei Bavel returned in the time of Ezra, they did not reconquer Ashkelon, so it never received kedushah shniyah. Ashkelon therefore remains chutz la'aretz from the standpoint of kedushah, even though it is geographically within the biblical boundaries. The shiur notes that Tosfos then adds a curious phrase: "v'lach ein talmidei chachamim metzuim sham, bein batei dinim k'vuim sham." What does the absence of talmidei chachamim and batei din have to do with the question? If Tosfos' question was simply whether Ashkelon is Eretz Yisrael based on the pasuk, then the answer should rest on kedushah alone—not on sociological facts about scholars and courts.
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.
