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.
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.
