A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא)'s answer to a question about eidus in Beis Din cite the principle of eid echad ne'eman b'isurim, which applies outside of Beis Din? The shiur analyzes this fundamental jump in Gittin 2a—from requiring two witnesses in a judicial setting to accepting one witness in non-judicial matters—and explores whether beyado lesaken creates a middle ground when there is a chazakah d'isura.
This shiur presents a fundamental analysis of the opening sugya of Masechta Gittin (2a), which discusses how many witnesses are required to validate that a get (bill of divorce) was written lishmah (for the sake of the specific woman). The Gemara (גמרא) begins with the assumption that two witnesses are required, following the general Torah (תורה) principle of kal eid yashiv es haTorah. The Gemara then answers with the principle of eid echad ne'eman b'isurim—one witness is believed regarding matters of issur and heter. Rabbi Zweig identifies a profound difficulty in the Gemara's structure. The original question assumed we need two witnesses testifying in Beis Din in a formal judicial proceeding. Yet the Gemara's answer—eid echad ne'eman b'isurim—according to Rashi (רש"י), refers to cases entirely outside of Beis Din, such as someone telling you meat is kosher or that terumah was separated. This represents not merely a reduction from two witnesses to one, but a complete shift from judicial testimony (hagadas eidus in Beis Din) to informal, non-judicial information given outside of Beis Din. Furthermore, Rashi indicates that even a pasul (disqualified witness) can serve as this single witness. The shakla v'tarya (give-and-take) of the Gemara seems to jump from one category to an entirely different one.
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.
