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.
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.
