No community start suggestion yet.
Does lishmah create a get, or does its absence invalidate an otherwise valid get? The machlokes between Rav and Rava turns on this question. When an eid testifies to lishmah, is he establishing a get where none existed, or merely removing a possible defect? The shiur develops that this determines whether his testimony is davar shebe'ervah (requiring two witnesses) and frames the Gemara (גמרא)'s entire discussion of eid echad ne'eman be'issurin.
This shiur analyzes Gittin 2b, focusing on the machlokes between Rav and Rava regarding chashash lishmah (concern that a get was not written for the correct woman) and the broader question of when eid echad is believed in matters of issur. Rabbi Zweig explores whether this is truly a dispute about statistical likelihood or reflects a fundamental conceptual disagreement. The core question is whether lishmah is constitutive of a get or merely a potential invalidation. According to one approach, a get written with all correct details is a valid get on its face, and shelo lishmah merely invalidates it—similar to other defects like mechubar (written while attached). According to the alternative approach, lishmah is essential to creating a get; without it, the document is merely a piece of paper with no halachic significance.
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 2b
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.
