No community start suggestion yet.
Can a single witness establish gadlus or create muchzak status in chazaka? The Gemara (גמרא) distinguishes between chatzi dover (half the fact) and chatzi eidus (half the testimony). Rashi (רש"י) and Rambam (רמב"ם) reveal that chazaka requires witnesses to the muchzak status itself — not just years of possession — and eid echad cannot establish this legal fact.
The shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Bava Kama 70b concerning the nature of eid echad (single witness) testimony in establishing legal facts. The primary case involves witnesses testifying about physical signs of maturity (two hairs) to establish gadlus (adult status). The Gemara (גמרא) presents a case where two witnesses say they saw one hair in one location and two witnesses say they saw one hair in another location — does this testimony combine (mitztaref)? The Gemara rules this is either chatzi dover (half a fact) or chatzi eidus (half a testimony). Rashi (רש"י) explains this is chatzi eidus because establishing gadlus requires two complete witnesses; each set is only testifying to half of what's needed. The Sha'ar Mishpat brings a proof from this Gemara that eid echad is not believed to establish gadlus, even when testifying about two hairs, since the Gemara calls it chatzi eidus.
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!
Bava Kama 70b
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.
