No community start suggestion yet.
How can rov validate a get when the Gemara (גמרא) requires two witnesses? Rov doesn't resolve doubts—it establishes there is no doubt, so witnesses aren't needed. The shiur analyzes whether smoich miuta l'chazaka creates a definite issur or merely a safek, which determines whether an eid can tip the balance against the chazaka.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of Gittin 2b, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of when a get written lishmah can be validated through rov (majority presumption) versus requiring two witnesses. The central question is how rov can be sufficient when the Gemara establishes that two witnesses are needed—especially since an eid echad (single witness) is generally believed to negate a rov. Rabbi Zweig begins by establishing a fundamental yesod: rov does not resolve doubts the way witnesses do. Rather, rov tells us that there is no doubt in the first place. When the Torah (תורה) requires witnesses, it is because there is a genuine question that needs resolution. But when rov establishes the facts—such as that gittin are written lishmah—there is no question to resolve, and therefore no need for witnesses. This is analogous to the case where a man returns after two witnesses testified he died: we don't need witnesses to confirm his identity because we can see he is alive. 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.
