No community start suggestion yet.
Why does a single witness suffice for isurim but not for verifying a get was written lishmah? The shiur develops Rashi (רש"י)'s position that eid echad is only believed when bi'yado — when the witness could perform the action himself. Since the witness cannot write the get lishmah for the husband, this case resembles shechita (chazakah d'issur b'cheftza gufa) rather than nikur (ikva issur), requiring two witnesses.
This shiur presents an in-depth analysis of the Gemara (גמרא) in Gittin 2a regarding the principle of eid echad ne'eman b'isurin and explores Rashi (רש"י)'s distinctive approach to this sugya. The fundamental question is: if a single witness is believed regarding matters of issur, why would two witnesses be required to verify that a get was written lishmah (for the proper woman)? The Gemara's dialectic begins with the premise that testimony requires two witnesses. The Gemara responds that eid echad ne'eman b'isurin — a single witness is believed regarding prohibited matters. The Gemara then challenges this by stating it's a chazakah d'issur (an established prohibition), which would seem to require two witnesses. Finally, the Gemara concludes "d'mashber" — distinguishing this case from standard isurin.
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.
