A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can one creditor seize collateral on behalf of another creditor when multiple creditors exist? The shiur analyzes the dispute between Rabbi Elazar and the Chachamim, examining whether the mechanism is tofes dibachov (creditor's seizure rights) or migud dezocheh (acquisition principles). Two fundamental approaches emerge: whether the problem is causing monetary loss to others or the inability to execute a valid kinyan without consent.
This shiur provides a comprehensive analysis of Gittin 11b, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of whether one person can acquire peyah (agricultural gifts for the poor) on behalf of another poor person. The Gemara presents a dispute between Rabbi Elazar, who holds that acquisition succeeds (zoche lo), and the Chachamim, who rule it should be given to the first poor person who arrives (yitnenu le'oni hanim tzarishon). Rabbi Zweig identifies two fundamental questions at the outset. First, there appears to be a contradiction between Rashi (רש"י)'s commentary in Gittin and his explanation in Bava Metzia regarding whether the case involves the landowner (baal hasadeh) or another person acting on behalf of the poor. Second, the language of the Chachamim is puzzling—why say "give it to the first poor person" rather than simply stating the acquisition doesn't work (lo zoche lo)?
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 11b
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.
