A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What is the function of witnesses in a divorce? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction in the Ran and Rambam (רמב"ם): witnesses need not testify to the physical transfer of the get, but must be present at the moment of transfer to declare the woman divorced—because divorce is a state matter requiring communal knowledge, not merely a private transaction.
Rabbi Zweig delivers an in-depth analysis of the role of witnesses (eidim) in the gittin process, focusing primarily on Gittin 4a and exploring a fundamental machlokes between Tosafos (תוספות) and the Mordechai regarding whether a woman is divorced when witnesses did not realize a get was being given at the moment of transfer but discovered it afterward. The Mordechai holds she is not divorced because the witnesses lacked knowledge at the actual moment (b'shas meisa), while Tosafos and most Rishonim hold she is divorced. The shiur then examines a parallel case in kiddushin brought by the Beit Shmuel citing the Rama: if witnesses see a ring in the man's hand and later in the woman's hand but did not actually witness the transfer (nisina), is the kiddushin valid? The Mordechai holds it is valid based on a principle of eidus yedida (knowledge-based testimony), while the Rashba holds it is not valid because witnesses must have eidus re'iya (visual testimony). Rabbi Zweig proposes that the distinction lies in whether the witnesses saw the action of transfer itself—even if they did not see the ring during its movement—versus cases where they saw no action at all.
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 4a
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.
