No community start suggestion yet.
Why does divorce require witnesses (eidei kiyum) when a woman's own admission would seem sufficient? The shiur develops the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s yesod that marriage and divorce are public matters, not private transactions. Because beis din bears responsibility for capital punishment in adultery cases, the community must know who is married—removing kiddushin and gittin from the realm of hodaas baal din and placing them under dover d'Oraysa mi-mamon.
This shiur analyzes Gittin 4a, focusing on the fundamental question of why divorce requires witnesses (eidei kiyum) when ordinarily a litigant's admission (hodaas baal din) should be sufficient. The Gemara (גמרא) establishes that unlike monetary matters where hodaas baal din works, divorce requires formal witnesses due to the principle of dover dover mi-mamon—a gezeiras hashavuah that extends the requirement of witnesses from monetary law to gittin. The mefarshim offer multiple approaches to reconcile this with the case of meis ba'alah (when a wife reports her husband's death), where a single witness—or even the woman herself—is believed. The first teretz holds that eidei kiyum is required by both gittin and meis ba'alah, but in the latter case the principle of kol mekadesh adas daas rabanan mekadesh allows the rabbanan to uproot the marriage retroactively. The second teretz maintains that eidei kiyum applies only to get, not to meis ba'alah, so dover dover mi-mamon doesn't extend to death testimony. The Lechem Mishneh offers a third approach: neither case requires eidei kiyum per se; rather, one needs certainty, and yesh dayah kamitzvas provides that certainty in death cases but not in gittin.
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 4a
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.
