A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא) require two witnesses for a scribe's testimony that a get was written properly, rather than accepting a single witness? The shiur analyzes the interplay between rov (majority), smach mi'uta l'chazakah (minority attached to a chazakah), and davar she'be'ervah (forbidden relations) through multiple Tosafot and Rishonim, exploring whether the get's writing itself is the beginning of divorce or merely a halachic instrument.
This shiur on Gittin 2b presents a complex analysis of why a single witness (eid echad) is not believed regarding whether a get was written lishma (for the proper intent), requiring instead two witnesses. The Gemara (גמרא)'s answer invokes the principle that according to the Chachamim one relies on rov beki'in (the majority of scribes are experts), while according to Rabbi Meir even a minority concern (mi'uta) requires attention. Rabbi Zweig begins by presenting three fundamental difficulties with the Gemara's answer. First, Tosafot in Chulin 12a states that Rabbi Meir's concern for the mi'uta is only mid'Rabanan (rabbinic), not de'oraita (biblical). If so, why isn't a single witness believed? According to standard halachic principles, an eid echad is believed for rabbinic prohibitions. Second, Tosafot in Yevamot goes further, stating that Rabbi Meir is only concerned for a mi'uta where there is smach mi'uta l'chazakah (a minority attached to a presumptive status), and even that is only mid'Rabanan. The evidence: the din of demai (doubtfully tithed produce) is only rabbinic, yet it involves smach mi'uta l'chazakah. Third, the Ritva asks that even according to the Chachamim, we should have a problem of smach mi'uta l'chazakah here, since there is a chezkat issur (presumption of forbidden status) on the woman.
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.
Why does the Gemara present a kal v'chomer for chuppah making kiddushin based on kesef not being maichel b'terumah, only to reject it? The shiur reveals that even the rejected kal v'chomer establishes a fundamental yesod: kiddushin is a kinyan for ishus (marital relationship), not merely a kinyan in hilchos kinyanim. The second kal v'chomer—from chuppah being gomeres—raises Tosafos's famous question.
Is the kesef used in kiddushin a true kinyan (acquisition), or merely a symbolic means of establishing marriage? The shiur analyzes multiple interpretations of the Gemara's derivation from ki yikach ki'ach mi'Sayeffron, exploring whether marriage constitutes ownership, and develops three fundamental approaches: (1) The Gemara proves ishus is a kinyan, (2) ishus is not a kinyan but uses kinyan-like means, or (3) ishus is a kinyan but the kesef may not be a ma'aseh kinyan. The Rambam's position—calling kesef "midivrei sofrim"—is explained as distinguishing between cross-referencing concepts versus borrowing terminology.
Why does the Mishna alternate between the language of "kinyan" (acquisition) and "kiddushin" (sanctification) when describing marriage? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: marriage has two separate aspects—a kinyan dimension (ownership) and a kedusha dimension (sanctified relationship). Either aspect can initiate the bond, and understanding this dual nature resolves multiple textual and halachic questions throughout the sugya.
Does kiddushei shetar require a shevah pruta? The Ran presents two approaches to the Rif's position. The shiur develops the Ran's second pshat that shetar kiddushin functions as a hachnah (exchange) rather than a mere kinyan nesina. This reading has profound implications for isuri hana'ah, mechubar, and the relationship between kesef and shetar.
