No community start suggestion yet.
Why is one witness believed for matters of issur when davar she'b'ervah normally requires two? The shiur develops Tosfos's chakira distinguishing between creating an issur (requires two) and removing one (one suffices), applying this to the case of writing a get lishmah. The Gemara (גמרא)'s answer of chazak issur redefines whether the witness is eid kiyum or eid birur.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of Tosfos on Gittin 2a regarding the principle of eid echad ne'eman b'isurin (one witness is believed regarding prohibitions). The Gemara (גמרא) discusses whether one witness suffices for testifying that a get was written lishmah (for the sake of the specific woman being divorced), even though davar she'b'ervah (matters of forbidden relationships) typically requires two witnesses. Rabbi Zweig begins by examining the apparent contradiction between Tosfos and the Rosh. Tosfos holds that it is harder to permit (le'hatir) than to prohibit (le'aser), meaning one witness suffices to create a prohibition but not to remove one. The Rosh takes the opposite position, stating it is harder to prohibit than to permit. Rabbi Zweig develops a resolution showing these are not contradictory but address different aspects of testimony.
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.
