No community start suggestion yet.
Why does a single witness suffice for isurim but not for verifying a get was written lishmah? The shiur develops Rashi (רש"י)'s position that eid echad is only believed when bi'yado — when the witness could perform the action himself. Since the witness cannot write the get lishmah for the husband, this case resembles shechita (chazakah d'issur b'cheftza gufa) rather than nikur (ikva issur), requiring two witnesses.
This shiur presents an in-depth analysis of the Gemara (גמרא) in Gittin 2a regarding the principle of eid echad ne'eman b'isurin and explores Rashi (רש"י)'s distinctive approach to this sugya. The fundamental question is: if a single witness is believed regarding matters of issur, why would two witnesses be required to verify that a get was written lishmah (for the proper woman)? The Gemara's dialectic begins with the premise that testimony requires two witnesses. The Gemara responds that eid echad ne'eman b'isurin — a single witness is believed regarding prohibited matters. The Gemara then challenges this by stating it's a chazakah d'issur (an established prohibition), which would seem to require two witnesses. Finally, the Gemara concludes "d'mashber" — distinguishing this case from standard isurin.
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.
