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.
When an animal damages crops, the Torah prescribes a unique payment formula based on multiplying the damaged area by sixty. Does this formula redefine the actual loss, or does it merely create a payment mechanism that still acknowledges the full damage sustained? The Gemara explores whether someone who ate in doubt should pay the higher-quality amount, examining how the principle of motzi me-chaveiro alav haraya applies when payments fall within the range of actual loss.
What makes testimony valid when different witnesses testify to different parts of the same event? The Gemara debates whether the principle of "davar v'lo chatzi davar" (complete testimony, not partial) disqualifies witnesses who testify separately to theft and slaughter. Rashi's approach reveals that the issue is not merely combining elements, but whether each witness's statement is independently meaningful.
Why is a ganav who sells a stolen animal on Shabbos exempt from the fourfold/fivefold payment? The shiur analyzes whether this exemption stems from kam lei b'derabbah or from the absence of a valid mechira. The Rashba's principle that matana resembles mechira when it is "nishtarish b'chet" is explored, along with the Rambam's position on hekdesh and the distinction between giving to bedek habayis versus mizbe'ach.
When a ganav shechts a stolen animal l'avodah zarah, why isn't he patur from payment since it's already isur hana'ah? The shiur explores the fundamental machloket Rashi-Tosafot on whether the isur derives from the act of shechita or from the din shechita itself. The Gemara's application of davar garem be'mamon ke'mamon domi extends the analysis to when borrowed animals become niskal.
