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.
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.
