No community start suggestion yet.
Why doesn't the principle that 'one witness is believed regarding prohibitions' apply to validate a get? The shiur develops how the Gemara (גמרא)'s two answers - chazakah de'isura and davar sheb'ervah - both turn on what exactly the witness testifies about: the woman's marital status or just the document's technical validity.
This shiur presents a detailed analysis of the sugya in Gittin 2a concerning the requirement for witnesses (eidim) when validating a get (religious divorce document). The Gemara (גמרא) initially suggests that just as all testimony (eduyot) in the Torah (תורה) requires two witnesses, so too should testimony about a get's validity require two witnesses. However, the Gemara then rejects this comparison by introducing the principle of 'eid echad ne'eman be'isurin' - that one witness is believed regarding matters of ritual prohibition. The Gemara provides two main reasons why the standard requirement for two witnesses doesn't apply here: First, the case involves 'chazakah de'isura' - the woman has an established status of being a married woman (eshes ish), and one witness cannot remove such an established prohibition. Second, this constitutes 'davar sheb'ervah' - matters relating to sexual prohibitions, which require two witnesses based on a gezeirah shavah from sotah.
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.
