No community start suggestion yet.
Why does Tosfos hold you always need eidei mesira by gittin, while the Rambam (רמב"ם) permits relying on eidei chasima alone? The shiur develops a yesod distinguishing the shtar aspect of get from its sefer kreisos dimension. Tosfos holds gittin is chav la'achrini (like kiddushin), requiring two witnesses beyond hodaas ba'aldin. The Rambam may hold geirushin is not chav la'achrini—since she's already forbidden to a kohen before the get—so hodaas ba'aldin suffices for the witness requirement.
The shiur analyzes a fundamental dispute between Tosfos and the Rambam (רמב"ם) regarding when eidei chasima (witnesses who sign the get) can serve in place of eidei mesira (witnesses to the actual delivery). Tosfos on Gittin 4a proves from multiple sources that we hold like Shmuel that by sh'tar sh'taros (standard documents), the halacha (הלכה) is eidei mesira karsei—the witnesses to the delivery establish the document's validity. Since this is the din by regular documents, the same must apply to gittin. Therefore, Tosfos argues, when Rav Elazar says eidei chasima suffice if the eidei mesira are unavailable, this only works because we assume there probably were kosher witnesses at the delivery. But if we know for certain there were no eidei mesira, the get is invalid. The shiur explores why Tosfos' position creates a logical difficulty. A get serves two functions: it is both a shtar (a document effectuating a kinyan/acquisition) and a sefer kreisos (a religious instrument of severance). If the halacha by sh'tar sh'taros were that eidei chasima karsei, then the shtar aspect of the get would be established through the witnesses who sign it. The sefer kreisos aspect would still require eidei mesira, but if those witnesses died, perhaps the eidei chasima could testify about the mesira as well. However, since Tosfos holds that by sh'tar sh'taros the din is eidei mesira karsei, the eidei chasima accomplish nothing—they are essentially meaningless. Therefore, one cannot rely on them for the mesira unless we assume there actually were kosher eidei mesira present.
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.
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.
