A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
The Gemara (גמרא) requires two witnesses for divorce testimony, yet accepts one witness based on eid echad ne'eman b'issurim. Is the rabbinic requirement treating this as a davar sheb'ervah (establishing prohibited status) or as eid echad ne'eman b'issurim (single witness credibility)? Rashi (רש"י) holds it remains eid echad ne'eman b'issurim even mid'rabbanan, explaining why echad keneged echad creates a problem without invoking chezkas issur.
This shiur undertakes a detailed analysis of Gittin 3a, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of how many witnesses are needed to permit a divorced woman to remarry. The fundamental question is whether the rabbinic requirement for testimony creates a status of davar sheb'ervah (a matter requiring two witnesses due to prohibited status) or maintains the character of eid echad ne'eman b'issurim (credibility of a single witness in matters of prohibition). The Gemara begins by suggesting that two witnesses should be required. However, it invokes the principle of eid echad ne'eman b'issurim - a single witness is believed in matters of issur. The Gemara then raises a difficulty: this should be considered chezkas issur (presumptive prohibited status) and davar sheb'ervah, which would require two witnesses. The Gemara answers that mid'oraisa there is no concern because ein ha'chatumim al ha'get ne'emanim ela min she'niftach lishmo b'eidim - the witnesses on the get are only believed once it is opened in the presence of witnesses. Therefore, the concern is only mid'rabbanan.
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 3a
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.
