A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When two witnesses bring a get from abroad, why don't they need to say "befanai nechsav befanai nechtam"? The shiur analyzes Rashi (רש"י), Tosafos (תוספות), and Rambam (רמב"ם)'s three fundamentally different approaches to this Gemara (גמרא), centering on whether we're evaluating the kashrus of the get or the fact of divorce, and whether eidei mesira requires kiyum ha-get at all.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental question in Gittin 2a regarding the requirement for witnesses who bring a get from chutz la'aretz to declare "befanai nechsav befanai nechtam" (in my presence it was written and signed). The Gemara (גמרא) establishes that when two people bring a get, this declaration is not required, but when one person brings it, it is required. The shiur explores why this distinction exists and what it reveals about the nature of the takanas chachamim. The shiur begins with Rashi (רש"י)'s approach. According to Rashi, the witnesses must see the writing and signing of the get, but they don't need to declare it verbally. Rashi explains that when two witnesses are present, they are believed through a migu (they could have said something more advantageous), so there's no concern that the husband will falsely claim the get is forged. However, Rashi adds that if the husband does come forward with such a claim, the witnesses must be mekayem the get (verify it). This raises a fundamental question: if the witnesses are believed through migu, why would they need to verify anything?
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.
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.
