No community start suggestion yet.
Why does a single shliach delivering a get require two eidim while two shluchim do not need to declare "befanay nefta, befanay nefta"? The shiur develops the Rosh's position that a single shliach becomes the principal in the maaseh geirushin—requiring eidei mesira to testify about *him*, not the husband—making him unfit to serve as an eid himself. Two shluchim, however, testify directly about the husband's action, bypassing this problem.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental question in the mechanics of shlichus (agency) in the context of geirushin (divorce): why does a single shliach (agent) delivering a get (bill of divorce) require the presence of two eidim (witnesses), while two shluchim delivering a get do not require the declaration "befanay nefta, befanay nefta" (before me it was torn/destroyed)? The discussion centers on the Rosh's position and explores the Gemara (גמרא)'s reasoning through a detailed examination of the nature of testimony in divorce proceedings. The core issue is understanding who the eidim are testifying about in each scenario. When two eidim come and testify that a get was delivered, are they testifying about the shliach's action or about the husband's (Reuven's) action? The Gemara, according to one reading that argues on the Rambam (רמב"ם), distinguishes between these cases by examining the structure of the testimony itself. When there are two shluchim, they are not declaring that they themselves divorced the wife; rather, they are testifying that Reuven divorced his wife. They serve as eidei mesira (witnesses to the delivery) regarding Reuven's action, not regarding their own role as shluchim. This means they can function as valid witnesses because they are not principals in the action—they are merely facilitating Reuven's divorce.
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 6a
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.
