A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When a husband says "batel hu" (it is annulled) about a get, does the language work? The shiur analyzes Rashi (רש"י)'s two-track approach: in one braisa, "batel" means annulment and "pasul" means defect—the former works, the latter doesn't. In another braisa, the words "ein mohel/lo yohel" are ambiguous, and past tense (avar) indicates defect while future tense (asid) indicates annulment.
This shiur delves into Gittin 32a, examining the halachic validity of different formulations a husband might use to annul (mevatel) a get (bill of divorce). The central question is whether the language "batel hu" (it is annulled) works to effect annulment, and how this compares to other formulations such as "pasul" (defective), "ein mohel" (it is not effective), and "harehu k'cheres" (behold it is like a potsherd). Rashi (רש"י)'s analysis distinguishes between two separate braisos addressing different aspects of annulment language. In the first braisa (dealing with "batel" and "pasul"), the issue is straightforward: "batel" is a proper expression of annulment (bitul) and therefore works, while "pasul" indicates a defect in the object itself and therefore does not work for annulment purposes. The husband cannot invalidate a get by claiming the document itself is defective; he can only annul it by expressing his intent to nullify it.
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 32a
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.
