No community start suggestion yet.
What makes testimony on a get acceptable from a single witness? The Gemara (גמרא) addresses whether testimony on the validity of a get is testimony about the get itself or about the divorce. Rabbi Zweig explores competing interpretations from Tosafot, the Nesivas, and Rav Kivegar regarding chazaka, dover shebe'erva, and when two chazakos can combine against one.
This shiur analyzes Gittin 2a's fundamental discussion of why a single witness (eid echad) is believed regarding the validity of a get (bill of divorce). The Gemara (גמרא)'s progression appears puzzling: it states that one witness is believed concerning isurim (forbidden matters), then asks about chazaka (established status), and introduces dover shebe'erva (matters requiring two witnesses). The shiur explores why the Gemara doesn't simply answer with either chazaka or dover shebe'erva alone. Tosafot raises a critical question: if the answer is dover shebe'erva, why does the Gemara need to mention chazaka at all? Why not go directly to dover shebe'erva? This question frames the entire analysis. The shiur examines whether testimony about a get is testimony on the document itself or testimony enabling divorce, and whether a get has independent halachic reality or exists solely as an instrumentality of divorce.
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 2a
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.
