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.
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.
