Tosafos here on דף ד' עמוד א' in Gittin, Tosafos says an expression, a sort of a vort, and that's going to be the whole shiur is going to be on that basically one line of Tosafos, which doesn't really have much to do with a get or with Gittin davka, but Tosafos here in Gittin brings that point, and mimeila, this is going to be the discussion. Now the Gemara says מודה רבי אלעזר במזויף מתוכו. Gemara brings Rava. Rava said that Rabbi Elazar is מודה במזויף מתוכו. That means that when Rabbi Elazar holds by a get or by other שטרות also, עדי מסירה כרתי. You don't need edim to sign it, you need edim to see the mesirah, giving over. Nevertheless, Rava says that even though you don't need the edim to sign and the get is kasher without any signatures at all, but if the signatures are there, they have to be kasher. You can't have עדים, פסולי עדים sign. The Gemara uses this also that they have to sign lishmah, but that's not the nekudah we're going to discuss today. We're going to discuss the first part. The original din of Rava is קרוב ופסול. Even though you could be yotzei without edim, you don't need edim on a get, and the same could apply other שטרות too, but let's discuss the get for the... you don't need עדים בכלל. But if they are there, they have to be kasher, כשר עדים, they can't be קרוב ופסול. And Tosafos explains what is the reason why the עדים have to be כשר עדים if they sign? Because לכאורה על פי שכל, you could say since you don't need them at all, at all, disregard them. So they're pasul, they're pasul, they don't count, what do we care? What do we need them for? So

Tosafos explains why do we need them? So he says: דהתם בדין מפסלו. In a case where the עדים are not כשר עדים, they're קרובים or פסולים, בדין מפסלו, there is a reason, halachadike reason why they're pasul: משום דילמא אתו, אתו למיסמך עלייהו, להשיאה, אי להוציא ממון על פיהם. Because we're afraid that later on you'll use this get to allow her to get married, because according to Rabbi Elazar, if you don't have עידי חתימה, she's also divorced, you don't need עידי חתימה. But later on, if she's going to want to prove that she's divorced, how is she going to prove it? The שטר, the get itself that she has doesn't prove anything because it has no עדים. אלא מאי, you're going to bring the עידי מסירה. You have to find them, and if the עידי מסירה are not around, so therefore he said you have you should have עידי חתימה. So when you have עדים sign, you might rely on them later on to use them to prove that she's divorced, or to be מוציא ממון על פיהם. You're going to use this get to collect the ketubah, or by other שטר you might use the get the שטר that the עדים signed to collect money. And

that's why they have to be כשר, כשר עדות. אף על פי שהדבר אמת, אין לעשות אלא בעדות כשרה. Even in a case where the maaseh is true, you cannot use not כשר עדות to accomplish what you have to, even if the maaseh is true. למשל here, we're not saying that we're afraid the get is not going to be good. The get is good without חתימות. Mimela she's really divorced. Later on, they're going to rely on this get. When they rely on this get, she's takeh divorced, not that pshat it's not true. אלא מאי, how are people going to know she's divorced? Through the עדים. So who cares if the עדים are not כשר? We're talking in a case where she takeh is divorced, הדבר אמת! If it's אמת that she's divorced, and people are going to know that she's divorced through the עדים, what are we worried about? We're not allowed to, right, have פסולי עדים when you don't need them and she's takeh divorced, and the אמת is she's divorced, because people might rely on them and say she's divorced based on the עדים, so let them rely, she's takeh divorced! So Tosafot says that the din is even if הדבר אמת, you have to have כשרה עדים in order to rely on them to prove something. And he brings a re'iyah: כדאמר בפרק קמא, כאן הגמרא says in בבא בתרא, וננחיה גבי עדים, זימנין דחזי בכתבא ומסהדי, ורחמנא אמר מפיהם ולא מפי כתבם. There's a case over there where we have a שטר, and the שטר is going to prove whether she's divorced or whatever, and the Gemara says that about זמן, that became a problem! Who should... who should hold the שטר? So the Gemara says if we're going to make her hold, can't trust the woman, she could change it. אלא מאי, let's the עדים hold it. We're afraid if the עדים hold it, later on you're going to ask the עדים to testify, they might forget the מעשה, and they're going to look into the paper, and that will be the how they will be מעיד. And the din is you're not allowed to be מעיד, you're not allowed to testify from a paper. מפיהם ולא מפי כתבם. So, the חכמים said, "We can't give it to the עדים, because we're afraid they're going to testify based on this." Who cares? We're talking about that the testimony is true. So, they'll testify based on here. So, the עדים will not be done כדין, the עדות will not be a דין, but who cares? All you have to do over there is to verify if it happened, and we know it happened. We now are doing something that we know is true. We're afraid that if we give them they're going to use it later, and the עדות won't be a כשר'ה עדות. Who cares? But they'll be saying the truth, and a עדות is only to verify what happened. If we need to verify what happened, as long as it takeh happened, even if you wouldn't have עדים, it would be good, lich'orah. So, who cares if the עדים are פסול? So, Tosafot, "No." Bring a re'iyah from that Gemara that if the edim are going to testify not according to din of edut, it's no good even if the דבר אמת. What we really have to discuss here is why, why takeh? Why is it so that if the ma'aseh is emet we don't we cannot rely on the edim, why not? Who cares? If the edim are only a re'iyah to prove what happened, and the מעשה טאקע happened, so what do we care if the edim are are are pasul or קרובים? What is the problem here? Now, Tosafot does bring a re'iyah from the Gemara over there. So, lichorah, good, so you have to farshteyn the Gemara over there, too. S'iz takeh a good re'iyah. Let's say if it's a good re'iyah, but you got to understand, takeh, what's wrong over there? Why is If it's kasher the מעשה טאקע happened, and the edim are going to testify the truth, אלא מאי, it won't fit to the דין עדות, who cares? Besides that, from there it's not such a strong re'iyah, cuz over there we're talking about the ma'aseh that it's noge'a to her being an אשת איש, and in there there's a din of גמר דין. There's a din that בית דין has to פסקן. To have a גמר דין you have to have edim. So, you could say when it comes to something that needs a גמר דין, you have to have כשר'ה עדים. But here, all we need is to prove a ma'aseh that happened, not to make her divorced or not make her divorced. She's divorced because it was given with עדי מסירה. Later on, how are we going to know what happened? Through the edim who signed. So, what do we need a גמר דין for? So, what do we care if the עדים are פסול? Lemaaseh, no מכשול, no stumbling block will come out of this. Nothing will happen wrong if פסול'ה עדים will say something which is takeh true and we will relying on that. What would happen? We'll rely on them, say she's divorced. She's takeh divorced. What's the problem? So, what's the sevara here why, when it comes to pasken'e the דין, we have to have עדים? Right. Right. What are they accomplishing? Yeah, but When we takeh don't know, we can't rely on them. We have a ספק if it's true or not, we can't rely on פסול'ה עדים. Here we're doing something lechatchila that we're afraid that something that's true, they might rely on them. What's wrong? What's going to be wrong if they rely on them later on? But no, now we know it's true now. We're talking about something in the future. Something in the future can happen. We know that in this case, we're afraid something is going to happen. These people This מעשה טאקע we know now happened. See, we're standing now before and we are dealing with the מעשה that takeh happened, and we know it happened. We're afraid later they're going to rely on them that it happened. Who do we care? Lemaaseh, they're not going to rely on something that's not true, they're going to have it true. I mean we need an sevara here. It's not a kashya, but we need an sevara. So, obviously, this right away, when we're talking about the גדר of עדות, which sicha do you think we bring in? Well, obviously, there's the one sicha in חלק י"ט, the one we spoke about once before and we're going to discuss the same thing again in פרשת שופטים, the famous sicha about עדי קיום and עדי בירור. And let me read the sicha. What we're going to do really now is

learn the sicha, and see how we could from this sicha learn pshat in the sicha, and from that to come out with גדרים of עדות. You're coming back, right? You're coming back? How much? 3 minutes? Good. 3 minutes. 12 13 after, we'll see. 16 after, we expect them back. Chazaka, how do you know if it's true or not? No, here we know it's true. Always when you come to when you start off with עדים, you never know if it's true or not, so you have to have כשר'ה עדים. Here we're dealing something that beforehand we're afraid something might come out later, and we know it's true. It's not a regular case here. We know it's true now, and we're afraid that something will be later based on these עדים. Who cares? See, when we regular talk about עדים, when do you need עדים? We don't know if it's true or not. Otherwise we can't rely on on פסולי עדים. But in this case we know it's true. But let's learn the sicha, and we'll see. The sicha

goes like this: and know it, instead of me reading it in Yiddish and translating, I'll read it lechatchila in English. In the inyan of עדות, which is based on the פסוק על פי שנים עדים יקום דבר, על פי שני עדים יקום דבר, based on two עדים you establish things, we find two kinds, the Rebbe says. First of all, it's called עדי בירור, עדים that verify. And for example, עדים עדות on a loan, if עדים say that this guy borrowed money, they're מברר. In other words, the money, he's not obligated to pay the money because of the עדות, and if you don't have עדות you don't have to pay if you borrow money, it's just for us to find out. And as I said last time, the Rebbe in the הערה quotes: לאיברא סהדי לשיקרא, the whole purpose of why the Eibershter created the concept of עדות, because there are liars. If there wouldn't be liars, you wouldn't even need עדים. Because the עדים don't accomplish anything, it's just if you find later you have a safek, you don't know whether it happened or not, so the עדים are מברר. And the Rebbe says, based on that, the taytsh of על פי שני עדים יקום דבר, what does the word יקום mean? ווערט פעסטגעשטעלט in Yiddish. Verified. You confirm. You confirm, על פי, two עדים, you could confirm something happened, because the עדים are to confirm, the ראיה that it happened. Then ב', the

second type of עדים, is עדי קיום. They make it happen. For instance, עדי קידושין, that their עדות is needed. The din is that even if he, the husband, and the wife both admit that I got, yeah, he tells, both the, he says, "I gave her קידושין," she says, "I got קידושין," the din is the קידושין is not good, because you need עדים as part of the קידושין. And he says based on that, the pshat of the word על פי שני עדים יקום דבר, what does יקום mean? Oyfgeton. Accomplish. The two עדים accomplish something, they make something happen. Okay. The question that I asked last time, which is not my question, the question actually the Rebbe in הערה 18 quotes from the Chelkat Yoav, Ketzot, we're saying עדי קידושין and עדי גיטין are עדי קיום, they make it happen. Where do we know that you need עדים by קידושין and by גיטין? From the פסוק על פי שנים עדים יקום דבר, דבר דבר מממון. We learn out, here by קידושין, by גיטין, it says the word דבר, מצא בה ערות דבר, over there, by regular, it says על פי שני עדים יקום דבר, so we learn out over there from here. If by עדים סתם, by עדי ממונות, by money, the עדים are עדי בירור, how do we learn out here עדי קיום? He says, and I'll read the words: מנלן דעדי קידושין הם עדי קיום, הרי עדי קידושין ילפינן דבר דבר מממון, שהם עדי בירור. So the Rebbe asks the she'eilah here, and doesn't answer, he just quotes, he says להעיר from the she'eilah, the whole discussion here, how do we know עדי קיום by גיטין and קידושין from ממון, which is עדי בירור? Now, possible that the, in the beginning when the Rebbe gives the two peshatim in the word יקום, he's trying to answer that even in the word יקום, which is written by by by ממון, you also could taytsh, not יקום means only to confirm, to verify, but יקום also the same יקום over there has a meaning of establishing. So what's the pshat? That how could you taytsh the same word פסוק in two ways? So maybe עדי בירור by by ממון is also עדי קיום? Because if the word יקום is written there, how do we differentiate the two that are takeh two pshatim? But which one? But by ממון, nevertheless, it's not עדי קיום. So the real taytsh over there is עדי בירור, and יקום means to confirm. How do we get this second pshat in יקום and we learn out from there? I mean, it's not so clear. So, actually I asked that shaila last time when we spoke about this sicha, and I explained it, and now we'll explain it also. So last time I said, if you remember, and I'll just say it בקיצור נמרץ, it was on דף ג' עמוד ב', I explained that even עדי קיום is really עדי בירור, they're really the same. Why is עדי קיום עדי בירור? It's not the pshat that by קידושין and גיטין you need two people standing, pashut part of the ceremony, you have to have two people. You have to have a husband, a wife, and a ring, and you have to have two people standing. Why do we call them עדים? They're not עדים. Has to be שני אנשים, you need two two men being there, it's not עדים. The whole concept of עדות means verification. So you have to be מברר. So why do we call it? So that's why I said it's also עדי בירור. The pshat is different. The pshat is that עדים is בירור. By קידושין it's also בירור, by גיטין. You have to have two עדים to be able to verify that it happened, but the verification that's needed by גיטין וקידושין is part of the קיום of קידושין. By, by הלוואה, the עדים are בירור, but if you don't have the בירור, what are you missing? You're missing the בירור. You will never find out. If the guy is going to deny it, you'll never know. But, but the חיוב is there. They don't accomplish anything. By גיטין וקידושין, it's such an important thing that it has to be done lechatchila in a way which is verifiable. A way which is to you could it's confirmable. Is such a word? I don't know. There is such a word? It's verifiable, I know is a word. And if it's made lechatchila without עדים, it's not the pshat if we'll ever have a safek later, you'll never be able to find out. No, l'chatchila it doesn't work. The חלות גיטין וקידושין has to be done in a way that you could verify it. If you can't verify it, it's not קידושין. That's what I explained last time. That what comes out from here, and what is the גדר? So I said that really עדי קיום is also a בירור. What I want to add now is pshat in the and I answer explained this, לפי זה we could answer how the question was, how do we learn out עדי קיום from ממון when ממון is עדי בירור, how could you say if you learn out דבר דבר? So I explained that even there it's also בירור. I want to add to that now. Just like I just explained that עדי קיום is also really עדי בירור, but the בירור שבהם is a קיום, I want to add something else now. The other way: that even עדי בירור is also קיום. Now, how is עדי בירור, where do we see this concept עדי בירור? עדי קיום to be בירור I explained, makes sense, that it's not that you don't need the בירור, the בירור is you need a בירור, the בירור makes a קיום. But how do you explain it the opposite? So, I want to say both ways, and therefore it'll be even better, that the באמת, בעצם, עדי בירור, קיום are the same thing. There's just what the הדגשה is, what you stress. So dividing like I explained one side then, that עדי קיום is really עדי בירור. Now I want to go עדי בירור is really עדי קיום also. How do we see it? So, we'll start off with the Gemara in no, the

Gemara in in Kesubos. Okay, it's not the Gemara in Kesubos says, דף י״ח עמוד ב׳, and it's a כלל not only but that's where the גמרא they talk about it, but it's a כלל always בנוגע עדות. There's a דין by עדות, a very, very strange din by עדות. By עדות we have a din of כיון שהגיד שוב אינו חוזר ומגיד. If two עדים come and say that, you know, this and this happened, we saw this guy מחלל שבת, and the guy deserves to get killed. Later the עדים come and say, you know, we lied! We lied yesterday. We were bad guys, and we decided we want to do teshuvah, and we're coming... Good. So the Gemara says here, כיון שהגיד, שוב אינו חוזר ומגיד. Taytsh the words: since they said it, they can't change. Strange din, it's a very strange din. How is it, can't change? The עדים come and say, you know, we lied. They're confessing! Using the words of the courts, it's confession! And let's say we interrogate them, and we investigate them, we question them, and we see they're not lying now. Because sometimes you could say maybe they were pressured by some other side to come back and say to take back their testimony. So the courts, what will the court do? The court will ask them questions and and see that they're not they know they weren't pressured, they're saying the truth. Too bad! כיון שהגיד שוב אינו חוזר ומגיד, you can't come back. What's the מקור of it? Where is what's the reason for this? Anything that the עדים say, they cannot come later and change it. No matter what they say. Unless they come and say something they say that they they were אנוסים מחמת נפשות, that the reason we said, because they were going to kill us, that's already pikuach nefesh. But otherwise, כיון שהגיד, that's the lashon, keep this in mind always. By

עדות there's a din: כיון שהגיד שוב אינו חוזר ומגיד. As soon as they were מגיד, they said the הגדה say this, they cannot change. What is the reason, where do we get this din from? Zagt Rashi azoy, I'll read you the Rashi. דגבי עדות חדא הגדה כתיבא. By עדות it says once the word הגדה, to tell: אם לא יגיד. Says, you have to testify if you know. You have to come to beit din to be מגיד, to say, and the pasuk says, אם לא יגיד ונשא עונו. If you don't say it, you have an aveirah. But it says the word יגיד. חדא הגדה, it's once. This is how Rashi explains the peshat in why, where do we get this idea. So it's like if you want to say, according to Rashi, it's a גזירת הכתוב. גזירת הכתוב means the Torah said so. We have a limud from a pasuk, fine, makes no sense, but The Torah says. The Ritva brings another peshat and another peshat. Finally he says, ונראה לי, the Ritva in Ketubot brought down in the Shita Mekubetzet there, says a reason. What's the reason? And this is what he says: Since the Torah says... Since the Torah says על פי שנים עדים יקום דבר, two edim make יקום דבר, if the din is that an ed could change his mind, how is going to be יקום דבר? How will be יקום דבר? How will the thing be established? Very... this is what he says at the end of the piece. He has a whole piece there with different peshatim, this is his peshat. What does he mean? So lichora, let me just say in simple terms what lichora he means. But I have a sheilah on that. Again, not a kashya, but a sheilah. Lichora he means like this: if the din would be that people could... Edim could come and change their mind, you could never come up with a decision based on that, going to say this: you never know, maybe tomorrow they'll come and change. Like this, we know Beit din pasken's and makes a decision on edut. Edim come and say, and we find out, and we accept the edim, we pasken you owe money, you don't, whatever we do על... about edut. So he says, "But if the din is that edim could change their mind, so how do you know? You're going to pasken today that the guy owes money because the edim said. מחר, tomorrow, the edim

will come back and say we lied, and we will accept their testimony that they lied, and we're going to have to change the psak." So you're never sure with the psak that you made, that's what it seems like he's saying. Wait till I finish, no. So that's the sevara, lichora what the Ritva is saying. Again, what he says is, the wording that he says is that since it says על פי שנים עדים יקום דבר... You have the sefer there, the Shita Mekubetzet? Yeah. I'll just read the words. I thought you were following inside, I was afraid you're going to catch my mistake in the words. So he says here like this: אבל הנכון, what I think the... first he has a different pshat. דנפקא לן, how we learn out this דין, מדכתיב על פי שנים עדים יקום דבר. Alma, listen to this, so we see, אלמא שהעידו בבית דין מתקיים הדין לזכות או לחוב לאלתר, that right away the psak is there, דאם יכולים לחזור ולהעיד היכי יקום דבר? If they're able to change, then how is יקום דבר? Okay? This is the words he says. So like I said, it seems to be saying that if they could change you could never be sure with your psak din. It's never establishing something because you never know if they change. It sounds like a sevara, but my she'eilah is, then what has it got to do with the pasuk? If If you rely on this logical sevara, pashut, you could never come to a decision because the eidim could change, then it has nothing to do with the פסוק יקום דבר. Because stam the the Ritva should have said: You know why they cannot change their mind? Because if they could change their mind, you never know, so how could you ever pasken? Why does he connect it, he says we learn out from the pasuk, since the pasuk says יקום דבר, what's it get to the pasuk? It was stam a she'eilah. Now, the truth is, in seichel it's not a good sevara. If you're going to look without the pasuk, that's not a good sevara, because then the whole metziut of eidut is batel. Ela mai? Maybe takeh he'll change his mind? Al pi derech klal, al pi rov, people don't change. If they made, they're made. א מול א מול they could change, so you can't... so you got to... Why that in court they accept testimony, and based on testimony they will pasken, להבדיל, why do they do it? Ay, maybe tomorrow they could change their mind, they'll come back and say that they lied, and the place was... But bederech klal they don't do it. And that has a din in halachah. In halachah, if bederech klal the chazakah or certain thing happens a certain way, we assume. If takeh the eidim will come and change their mind... Please go back. Don't Don't go here. If the eidim will come... It's already more than 16, okay. Where is he? Oh, sorry. I didn't see you walk in. See, you should have... I didn't see... Ah, yes. But the vort is I couldn't see you because you weren't looking at me. Yeah, you're supposed to look that I should see you. Good, good, good. Okay. So... came takeh back on time? Yeah. Okay, good, good. Kept your word. Okay, let's go get get away from the inyan. So if most cases when people testify they don't change their mind, so beis din... so beis din, להבדיל, the court does the same thing. If the guy will come later, then they will change it. Al derech, I'll give you an example:

Tosafos asks a very interesting kashya, but I'm going to bring only one... Tosafos has two points, but the one point, Tosafos in Gittin that you learned... You learned דף ל״ג in גירסא? And there Tosafos says The Gemara says אפקיעינהו רבנן לקידושין מיניה, certain cases that the רבנן say that the קידושין is no good. So Tosafos asks a she'eilah there, but לגבי a get, but I'm not even getting to the get. So Tosafos asks a she'eilah, when you have a נזיר, a נזיר drinks wine, and you warn him, what's the din? Gets מלקות. But a נזיר could always go and be שואל על נדרו. A נזיר is a נדר. He could always go and nullify his נדר, and then it's בטל למפרע, then it never was. So על פי זה, how do you ever, how can you warn a נזיר? The din is that when you warn somebody, it cannot be an התראת ספק. You can't warn him, saying, you know, "If you do this, maybe you'll get punished." Doesn't work. If you say that, then there's no התראה. But how could you ever tell the נזיר, "If you drink the wine now, for sure you're going to get מלקות"? Why? Tomorrow he could go to, a week later he could go to a beis din, beis din will nullify the נדר, so he never was a נזיר, and he won't get. So it's, so even if he doesn't nullify, he shouldn't get מלקות, because when you warned him, it was never a ודאי warning. So Tosafos answers, now he's a נזיר? So we assume he's a nazir. In other words, and Tosafos בדרך כלל a person doesn't go to be מתיר his נדר. If he will מתיר, ein hachi nami, he won't get מלקות, but it's not called התראת ספק. Same thing here: the fact that עדים come and you're not sure that they might come and change their mind, so maybe how could you פסקן the din based on their testimony? I'll tell you why: because now they said it, and בדרך כלל you don't change your mind, that's why. So the sevara is not a good sevara. Ela mai what he's asking is based on the pasuk. So then I don't understand what the kashya is. Why is this not יקום דבר? His kashya is, since the pasuk says על פי שנים עדים יקום דבר, and if they could change their mind, where's the יקום דבר? Why not? Even though they could change their mind, but בדרך כלל they don't, like we just said in the sevara, so it's a יקום דבר! If they'll come and change their mind, ein hachi nami, in that specific case we'll have to take back the פסק, we'll have to change the פסק. But why is this such a big problem? Why is this a contradiction to the יקום דבר? And obviously he doesn't accept that it's a problem in sevara, because then he wouldn't ask from the pasuk, he would say stam, how could you? Ela mai he doesn't hold, he holds the sevara is not a problem. You could rely on what they said now, even though they could change. But then what's the problem with the pasuk? So I want to say lichora you could say like this. And what I'm asking is don't jump on me, and I wish you would, be so excited and saying, "Ah, how could you say such a sevara?" and jump on me and this and that. We gotta I was telling somebody this morning, I was on the phone with someone in Yisrael, but whatever, so I told him, the Rebbe once when the first time they started with the Rashis, the Rebbe said something which was a he said Rashi learns against halacha, so later the Rebbe told somebody, "I hoped that this would make a whole commotion, that people would hear it and they would come with ta'anot, ich s'iz der pshat, and they would go this Not only davka Lubavitch, other people should to discuss it." Anyway, what I want to say is like this.

Even by עדים which are עדי בירור, the עדים make it that the thing happened even if it didn't. Oh oh oh good good, see! In other words like this: when עדים come and say something, and it's only מברר what happened before, their testimony, as far as the Torah is concerned, as far as we are concerned, it happened, we pasken as if it happened even if l'poel it didn't happen. In other words, we don't take it because we're מברר it happened, especially based on the Rambam. The Rambam, you have here a מראה מקום, יסודי התורה פרק ז׳ הלכה ז׳ and פרק ח׳ הלכה ב׳, the Rambam says clearly, when the Torah says על פי שנים עדים יקום דבר, not because we know it's true, because just like you can't trust one guy, maybe he's lying, two people could also lie. What the Torah says is it's a din. Now, what's of a din? It's a בירור. We know what happened, but not because we physically know what happened בדרך הטבע, because this guy said so, oh so now for sure it happened. We don't know! The Torah says, "Make the בירור, that's מברר to you." In other words, ke'ilu even if it didn't happen, we say it happened, and we pasken according to that. Ah? I'm saying farkert. If it happened If it happened, we don't need them. But l'poel the מוסר פון עדות is, I'm saying the dugma is farkert: when it didn't happen, we still say. If two עדים come and they go through the חקירה ודרישה like you're supposed to, and they say the guy borrowed money and we pasken, is it true or is it not true? I'll give you an example:

somebody once came the story is a little different somebody once came to the Baal Shem Tov and said like this, "I have a problem. I lent somebody money, and he didn't want to pay me, he denied it, I called him to beis din. I didn't have any עדות, I had no ראיות. What did בית דין פסקן? המוציא מחברו עליו הראיה, בית דין said you don't have to pay. I know he owes me the money! בית דין פסקנט על פי תורה, תורה is אמת. How could תורה פסקן שלא כדין? That's what he asked him the שאלה. So the story goes he told him to go and they found out that really he owes him money, if some other way, whatever, but what I want to say here is, in a case like this, he takeh owes him. If there's a דין עדים, or in the case there was no this case was no עדים, but let's say עדים come and say you owe the money when you really don't owe, they make it as if, because there's a din that what the עדים say follows. So besides the fact, see, there's two things: there is a concept of עדים the way the velt understands, that's nothing to do with Torah. Courts have דין עדות, and they don't follow Torah, because it makes sense. I, maybe he's lying, so they say we do the interrogation, we do the investigation, we do this research, we do everything, and then we figure out and we base it on witnesses, and that's how they base, that's a שכלדיקע זאך. על פי תורה it's a different דין. It's not only על פי תורה that they come and you שכל מן הסתם it's saying the truth, על פי תורה, they make it happen! Basically, what I said before that in the Tosafot that by דיני נפשות there's a גמר דין, the גמר דין means Beit Din establishes it, I'm saying by עדי בירור also Beit Din establishes it. Yeah, the same way. If עדים say he paid, Beit Din will פסקן that he doesn't owe. Now, unless they will and if עדים will come and change their mind, what This is what I'm getting to: why is כיון שהגיד שוב אינו חוזר ומגיד? No, they're making that whatever that based on the עדים פסקנט, that is the emet! That becomes the emet, they make the emet! They change the מציאות. It's בכלל like we all know that Torah changes the מציאות. That's the פשט על פי שנים עדים יקום דבר. Even by עדי בירור יקום דבר. I want to read you the sicha in חלק כ״א. In חלק כ״א, he's not talking about עדי קיום. חלק כ״א, page 62, the Rabbi talks about עדים, he said like this: יש לומר... ער גיט אַ פשוטע שאלה: עדות איז נישט נאָר אַ בירור. We're talking עדי בירור here, and he says clearly: איז נישט נאָר אַ בירור על פי שכל, נאָר ס'איז אַ דין ועשייה וגמר דבר, וגזירת הכתוב: על פי שנים, שני עדים יקום דבר, און ווי דער רמב״ם איז מבאר אז נצטוינו לחתוך את הדין על פי שני עדים כשרים, ואף על פי שהעידו בשקר. So the Rabbi uses this word, which we said by by דיני נפשות there's a דין גמר דין, like we said in the other shiur, by קנס. When Beis Din paskens a קנס, it's not בירור. It's not that two עדים will come and testify that you stole and you have to pay קנס because we found out that you stole. The fact that the עדים are saying it, they make the דין קנס. והראיה, if you're modeh yourself that you stole, what's the דין? הודאת בעל דין כמאה עדים, and you know you stole, and you don't pay קנס! מודה בקנס פטור. So there's two pshatim, but one of the pshatim is that it's not that you find out that this happened, that's why you pay קנס. The עדים make it! Same thing by דיני ממונות, by דיני by מיתה. By דיני ממונות, not by קנס, we always assumed it's not like that. בית דין don't make the דין, עדות don't make anything, they just verify. That's why if you're modeh yourself, you have to pay. But the Rebbe says here that ס'איז נישט נאָר אַ בירור על פי שכל, נאָר ס'איז אַ דין און עשייה, and he says in part אַ גמר דבר, אַ גזירת הכתוב, based on the Rambam. That is that עדים accomplish something. Now,

based on this we could explain: what is the pshat, why what the what the Ritva means כיון שהגיד שוב אינו חוזר ומגיד, and what's his sevara? Since the תורה says יקום דבר, if they could change their mind, how could it be יקום דבר? So pashut pshat we learn what does it mean: they change their mind, you can never pasken! How could you pasken and assume it happened when later they change their mind? So I said that's not a kashya, he doesn't ask a kashya from שכל, because not a kashya, courts also pasken with עדים, that's no problem. Not a ra'ayah, I'm just saying to give an example. The pshat that you could say he means is different: he means to say that since it says על פי שנים עדים יקום דבר, and he means to say what the Rabbi says here, what I'm saying, that two עדים, no matter what, אפילו by דיני ממונות, make it happen, so after the עדים said, יקום דבר. It becomes like that. That's why אינו חוזר ומגיד, because it already happened! Already the metziut happened like that! כיון שהגיד שוב אינו חוזר ומגיד, that's what he's You have to see how to fit it into the words, but you could fit it into the words of the of the Ritva, saying that's what כיון it says על פי שנים עדים יקום דבר, how could you say יקום דבר if they could change their mind? That means if they could change their mind, that means you never said that it could happen. Like this, we're saying if they said it happened, it happened whether it happened or not. In Torah, I meant to say in a הלכהדיקע פוינט. What do we gain from this so far? So now, we have a new thing here. That עדי בירור is also מקיים, makes it happen. So לפי זה, if we're going to combine both things, what I said last time, what I say now, it comes out that עדי בירור, עדי קיום are very, very close. What did I say last time, what I said before? That every עדי קיום is really a בירור. The whole ענין of that they're מקיים is really a בירור that they're מברר, but the בירור becomes the קיום. Now, I'm saying another thing, that not not the opposite, the other side of the coin. They're both true. It's not like opposite סתירות. עדי בירור is also a קיום. Huh? Doesn't contradict. No. No, doesn't contradict at all. It's the same thing Not the same thing, it's just an addition. The בירור is a קיום by עדי קיום, and by the עדי עדי בירור, that בירור is also a קיום. אלא מאי, kvetsh, what do we kvetsh? By עדי בירור, you don't need the עדים in order to be מקיים. Without them, it also happens, but when they are there, they make it happen. That was The difference will be very little. See, what we try always when you have two sides, we always try to make the difference very as little as possible, מחלוקת or whatever. Here, it comes out that when you have עדים, they're מקיים, even עדי בירור. The only thing is, in order for the thing to happen, you don't need the קיום דווקא through the עדים. The עדים could also do it, but if you don't have עדים, you also owe the money. But if you don't But sometimes if you don't know or if you did it or not, the עדים will make it happen. But you don't need the עדים, the בירור, that without the בירור, it shouldn't happen. By עדי קיום, there is the opposite. There you need the בירור for the קיום to happen, but that בירור is also going to make the קיום. If they made a No, they don't, farkert. כיון שהגיד שוב אינו חוזר ומגיד. Well, they test They testified already. עדי בירור, we said, yeah, yeah. They can't come Yeah. Right? No, they were testified already. How could they testify against? They can't go back. So they testified. So they later on, we don't accept their testimony. כיון שהגיד, no? Farkert, that's that's the classical case of כיון שהגיד שוב אינו חוזר ומגיד. Since they signed already the get, they can't come back They can't come and say, "We change our testimony." Because of חתימה. That's where the Gemara Actually, in such a cases is where the Gemara uses that, where עדים sign in a שטר, and then they come later, when the guy brings the שטר, "You owe me money," they come to say, "Yeah, the עדים" He brings the עדים, the עדים said, "This was false. We We We lied." So the Gemara, "Too bad, you can't say it. כיון שהגיד שוב אינו חוזר ומגיד. You signed, you testified already." No. And the עדי What's a What's the case? עדי מסירה, according to Rabbi Elazar, עדי מסירה, you don't need עדי חתימה. You don't need עדי חתימה, right. The get is still good. They testified. Yeah, but עדי מסירה, we said, is a בירור. Doesn't mean testified, but that's that's הגדה, no? That's called הגדה. No, they're not. That's why I keep on saying that they're not standing to to so be standing. That's called testimony. We're saying that's the בירור. The בירור is that you have two people standing, that that's the בירור. Well, the truth is if there's no If that's called no הגדה, then taka they could say later, farkert, because there's no הגדה. Maybe. I'm saying if that I don't think so, because I think that's called הגדה, but if you say if it's sevara is not called הגדה, then they could. They could come and say not, adraba, they could come without הגדה, they could say like this. And takeh, what would be if two עדים come and say, "We never were there"? They're mamzerim! Sure, they could. Lemafre'a. It was always lemafre'a. Mamzerim can't start from today! Why not lemafre'a? I'll tell you even better: If we know that they were the עדי מסירה there, then they can't, vadai they can't, but let's say we don't know, people claimed that they were two עדי מסירה, then we called עדי מסירה, they say, "We were never there." That's not כיון שהגיד. Then they were never עדי מסירה. There was no עדים to begin with. But if the עדים were there, vadai they can't. They takeh can't. They can't come back later. אינם כיון שהגיד שוב אינו חוזר ומגיד. So based on this, we understand pshat in Tosafos. The whole she'eilah in Tosafos was that what does Tosafos say? That why is עדים קרובים פסולים, no good, אף על פי שהדבר אמת, you need כשר עדים, why? Because later when they're gonna want to testify, the עדים make it up, so it has to be עדים על פי דין. You can't have stam. If the עדים would be סתם עדי בירור על פי שכל, who cares, as long as the ma'aseh is emes! Here we're saying, when they're gonna want to verify it, and they're gonna use the עדים, the עדים will be making it. They're making the din. And making the din, you have to have כשר עדות. Yeah, what? Really, the עדי בירור is really makes a kiyum also. Not now. Now you don't need them for the kiyum, but later on when they testify, it's a kiyum. עדי קיום is also birur. So really, they're both עדי בירור, עדי קיום. Mimela, peshat in the sicha is, how could you learn out the two? Because they're the same thing. The nekudah is the same in both. אלא מאי, ווי עס דריקט זיך אויס, as it's manifest itself to פרטים, it's different. But the nekudah is both. And that's the פשט, כיון שהגיד שוב אינו חוזר ומגיד. And that's the peshat in our Tosafot, that you must have כשר עדות. It's not if the whole thing would be just to verify what happened, so who cares if they're פסול עדות? The ma'aseh actually happened! It's not like that. You rely on them because they make the din happen, and for that you have to have כשר עדות. Based on this, we could explain something else. Let's see. We'll skip not the Gemara in Kiddushin, that we'll get maybe if we have time, the Gemara later in Gittin דף ט. In Gittin דף ט עמוד א, okay, let's see in Gittin, it says like this: כל השטרות העולים בערכאות של עכו״ם, any shtar that comes from a goyishe court, אף על פי שחותמיהן עכו״ם, even though the signatures are גוים, כשרים. A shtar that comes from a goyishe court with goyim signing, it's kasher. You could rely on it. חוץ מגיטי נשים ושחרורי עבדים, except a get from a woman, or a shichrur, shtar shichrur from an eved, which is similar to a get, all the dinim are the same, that's no good. Comes Rashi and says like this: כל השטרות העולים בערכאות של עכו״ם, yeah, כשרים, why? So

Rashi says, because דינא דמלכותא דינא, the din of the government is a din. And Rashi is right on דף ט עמוד ב on top, second line on top. Yeah, and then he says חוץ מגיטי נשים, except Gittin, why? דלאו בני כריתות נינהו. גוים are not part of כריתות, they're not part of a גט, the of a ענין of getting divorced in the way אידן get divorced. ולא שייכי בתורת גיטין וקידושין, they're not שייך to the whole דין of גיטין וקידושין, so they can't be עדים. אבל על הדינים נצטוו בני נח. But when it comes to דיני ממונות, which is דינים, it's one of the שבע מצות בני נח. גוים were commanded to have דינים, to have a court case, and to judge דיני ממונות. So they are basically בתורת דיני ממונות of a איד. So they are part of the דיני ממונות of a איד, so they could be עדות. Comes the Tosafot HaRosh, and the Tosafot HaRosh says that from here we see that Rashi holds, like the Sefer HaChachmah, different שיטות, that a גוי is כשר לעדות מדאורייתא. Only for דיני ממונות. For דיני ממונות. For דיני ממונות, a גוי is כשר לעדות מדאורייתא בדיני ממונות. And the only thing by גט is an exception, because it has to be בתורת כריתות, בתורת גיטין וקידושין, they have to be part of it. How Where do we take this that you have to be part? So Rashi later on says, because the פסוק says, וכתב ונתן. So we דרשן: מי שהוא בתורת וכתב, is בתורת ונתן. Those that somebody who's part of the idea of writing a גט, in other words, somebody who, in order to get divorced, has to write a גט, he is part of the ונתן, part of the giving. But whoever is not part of the וכתב, which is a גוי, cannot be part of the ונתן, cannot be an eid on the get. Fine. So there's a special limud there. But otherwise, Rashi learns that a goy is kasher mi'de'oraita to be an eidut on a get. Comes the Pnei Yehoshua, and other mefarshim ask: we don't understand. According to this, if Rashi holds that a goy is kasher la'eidut on mi'de'oraita on a shtar, not on a get, on a shtar mamonot, why does Rashi have to add that the reason is because they were נצטוו על הדינים? Bnei Noach, it's one of the שבע מצות בני נח is because of the dinim. Those What's the reason for those that hold, many shitot hold that a goy is pasul mi'de'oraita at any any type of eidut. Why? Where do we get this from?

Because the pasuk says, שקר ענה באחיו. If someone testifies false, שקר ענה באחיו, so it says here that who could you testify on? אחיו, your brother, tzu a yid. A goy cannot testify. Rashi obviously does not learn like that. If Rashi would learn like that, how do we see Rashi doesn't learn like that? A goy could not be part of a shtar. Can't be an עדות בכלל. A goy cannot be an eidut because it says a pasuk. The fact that Rashi learns that mi'de'oraita a goy could be an eid, obviously for some reason he doesn't learn that derash. He doesn't learn the derash of אחיו. The moment we don't have the דרש of אחיו, what would be the דין by a by a regular שטר by a גוי? Should he be כשר or פסול? כשר. Why not? Why should he not be כשר? There's no פסוק. By גיטין and קידושין we have a reason why he's פסול because it says וכתב ונתן and has to be part of כריתות, part of תורת גיטין. By דיני ממונות, do we need any reason why by דיני ממונות a גוי is כשר? No. Farkert, if we don't hold of the פסוק אחיו, we don't דרשן that פסוק, what we do need is a reason why by a גט he's פסול. Again, those that hold that a גוי is פסול לעדות is because we have a special פסוק. Imagine if we wouldn't have the פסוק, what would be? He would be כשר. So, a

גוי is כשר. Do we need a reason why a גוי is כשר? There was no There's no reason why he's not כשר. Farkert, we need a reason why by a גט and by קידושין he's פסול. Because if he's if we don't have a דרש of אחיו, he should be כשר. So, we have a דרש וכתב ונתן. By דיני ממונות where we don't have the פסוק וכתב ונתן, a גט a goy is kasher. So, why does Rashi have to add that the reason he's kasher because they are part of דינים? Because דינים is one of the שבע מצוות בני נח, they're part of דינים, וממילא they're kasher to be an עד by דיני ממונות. We need that for? Which pasuk? But the if you have the pasuk, this won't help you. If the if you darshan the pasuk, they can't be עדים even with with with with דינים, even though they have they're they're part of דיני ממונות. There's a pasuk that they're pasul. Rashi obviously does not That drash is not in the Gemara, so Rashi doesn't have to agree on it. For some reason, I did not go into it, we don't know why, but Rashi doesn't agree to this pasuk, that's for sure. With this drash of the pasuk. Because then then the עדים would be the goy would be There are some that learn that a goy is פסול מדאורייתא. Ayei how can the Gemara says he's kasher? It's a דין דרבנן. To make it easier, the רבנן said if it's ערכאות, we trust them, דרבנן. From Rashi, משמע he holds מדאורייתא. מדאורייתא he's kasher means he doesn't darshan the drash of אחיו. If he doesn't darshan the drash of אחיו, so then why do we need a reason why he's kasher mi-de'oraita? Farkert, there is no reason why he's pasul. The only case where he's pasul, we need a reason why he's pasul by a get, so we have a we have a pasuk. But why does Rashi have to say this? This is what they ask. So based on what I said before, you could say that Rashi means something else. What What I said before was a chidush that edut by a Yid and an ed, even by דיני ממונות, is not the same like a regular ed that you have lehavdil in court or by goyim or על פי שכל. Like we said in the sichah, there's a דין עדות. There's a special halachah of edut that he becomes an ed. And therefore, all the dinim and the restrictions come because על פי הלכה there's a דין עד. If there's an הלכה דין עד, without a pasuk a goy can't be. Not because a goy whether he's in תורת ממונות or not, is a goy in the גדר of ed? Edut is a Torah'dike zach. So normally you learn, עדי קיום by kiddushin is a תורה'דיקע זאך, עדי בירור by ממונות is a a veltliche zach. And the best re'ayah is you have in court you no Torah and you still have it. So it's a veltliche zach. If it's a veltliche zach, and we don't have a דרש אחיו, then a goy should be כשר לעדות. But now that we're saying there's עדות in everything is a תורה זאך, it's a halacha of עד that he's different, that he could accomplish a עד who says he's accomplish, he's יקום דבר, he makes up a קיום. Even by עדי בירור he makes a קיום. So, is a goy part of that without any pasuk? A goy cannot be part of it. A goy is not a Torah has no שייכות to דיני תורה, he has no שייכות to being an עדי תורה. That's what Rashi says, not לגבי דיני ממונות בפרט. Rashi says like this: since the goyim were נצטוו על הדינים, so the ענין of having דינים is a דין of goyim too על פי תורה, oh, mimela a goy could have the גדר עד על פי תורה. When we say דינים, דינים means that goyim have to have courts and the regular court system. Part of the court system is עדות. So mimela if the goyim have a מצוה of דינים, so there is a גדר of עדות by the goyim too. Mimela a goy is could be a תורה'דיקע עד. That's what Rashi says. If a goy could be a תורה'דיקע עד, then why is he pasul? איי, so by get and kiddushin also, that's what Rashi said, by get and kiddushin, that's a special pasuk. וכתב ונתן it has to be תורת כריתות, and he's not בתורת כריתות. So, it's a special din. But again, the question was why does Rashi have to add the words that the גוים דינים is part of of of of מצות בני נח? Der Eibershter was mitzvah them. What's that נוגע? And if der Eibershter wasn't mitzvah them, what why should a goy be pasul? I'm telling you why a goy should be pasul. Because it's a דין עדות by a גו- עדות is not a is not a וועלטליכע זאך. A goy is not part of Torah. We have to find that a goy is part of Torah. And what do we find? That since it's part of דינים, part of דינים is giving having עדות. So, a goy is part of the דינים of עדות of Torah. And ממילא, that's why Rashi says, it's כשר מדאורייתא. Because they're part of the דינים of תורה'דיקע דינים. But the reason we need this for, because otherwise we're missing the whole idea of what a עדות is על פי תורה. Based on so we came like this is this is all connected to one side of the coin, that even עדי בירור is kiyum. עדי בירור make something a גמר דין על פי תורה, like the גזירת הכתוב. The other side of the coin was that even עדי בירור עדי קיום is also עדי בירור. So based on that, we could answer another kashya. And see how far we could get with this. The

Gemara in Kiddushin says that you can't when the Mishnah says האשה נקנית, the first משנה, האשה נקנית בשלשה דרכים. You could be קונה a woman בכסף, שטר, וביאה. The Gemara says, why does it say a number? I mean, you could see three things there, כסף, שטר, וביאה. Why give me the number three? למעוטי חופה. It comes to tell you that you cannot be מקדש with חופה. And if you do חופה and you had the husband has a mind that the חופה should make the קידושין, חופה works only for נישואין, the second stage, but not for קידושין. So Rashi gives an example. למעוטי חופה, שאם מסרה לו אביה לחופה, if the father gave over his daughter to חופה, the same קידושין, because who is who marries off a daughter who is a קטנה or a נערה? The father. So if the father took money from the man, from the husband, she's מקודשת. Or if the father did any other gave gave her over to the husband for קידושין, she's מקודשת. But if he gave her over לשם חופה, אינה מקודשת בכך. She's not מקודשת. That's what they mean, חופה doesn't work for קידושין. So, the mefarshim ask a she'eilah, why does Rashi pick an example of the father giving her over לשם קידושין, give her over לחופה לשם קידושין. Why davka the father? Why can't he say a normal case? If a woman went to חופה לשם קידושין, an adult, not with the father. She's not מקודשת! So the יש אומרים is one teirutz, but the the the Mekaneh answers that maybe Rashi holds like the Rambam, that what's חופה, because there are so many שיטות what חופה is, חופה is יחוד הראוי לביאה. It has to be יחוד, he brings her home and it has to be יחוד alone, and has to be ראוי, fit for ביאה, that's that's חופה. Now, if Rashi holds like that, if it's חופה that she took herself, we have a כלל, הן הן עדי יחוד, הן הן עדי ביאה. What's the יחוד? Where do you have עדים by the יחוד? The עדים stand outside and they מעיד that you had יחוד. Now, we know that by the

דינים of עריות, if two people had יחוד and she's an אשת איש, you could kill her based on that, because the עדים of יחוד become the עדים of the ביאה. M'meila, if so, when he had יחוד with her לשם חופה, the חופה, I mean, which is חופה is יחוד, and he had the חופה the יחוד לשם קידושין, so we said the קידושין is not חל because חופה can't be קידושין. But since there was יחוד, maybe there was ביאה, and adrabah, we say הן הן עדי יחוד הן הן עדי ביאה, so it was מקדש her בביאה, how could you say she's not מקודשת? If the father gave her over, then you the father said I want the חופה to be קידושין. What are we afraid? Maybe he did ביאה? She's not מקודשת, because you need the father's הסכמה, and the father never was מסכים for the קידושין of ביאה. So ממילא she's not מקודשת, but if she herself did it, she'll be מקודשת. Ah? No, no. חופה is יחוד הראוי לביאה. יחוד הראוי לביאה. If you do ביאה לשם חופה also, but here we're afraid he did חופה לשם ביאה לשם קידושין. But the שאלה is, even if she did it herself, so we're afraid maybe there was ביאה, so she's מקודשת because of the ביאה, but the עדים don't know. The עדים know that he took her in לשם חופה. So even if he did ביאה לשם קידושין, but you have to have the עדים! You have to have the עדי קיום to know what's going on. So ממילא if עדים are עדי בירור, who cares? The בירור, what's the בירור? To מברר what happened. What happened? There was ייחוד, and עדי דייחוד עדי דביאה, so it's good enough. If the עדים are עדי קיום, so they have to be part of the ceremony. They don't know that it was לשם קידושין. To them it was חופה, and they don't know that their ביאה was לשם קידושין. But if you learn that even עדי קיום is also עדי בירור, so all you have to know is not that they have to see the, know the, they have to be מברר what happened. And even in a case like this, they're מברר what happened, and ממילא, in this case, the קידושין would be קידושין. מסירה and חתימה are likened to kiyum and birur, no? It's like you can say, no? Why not? Because later on, you would