A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why must a shaliach bringing a get from medinas hayam declare "befanai nechtat, befanai nechtat"? The shiur analyzes the Tanna Kamma-Rabban Gamliel dispute over defining medinas hayam, explores whether the concern is the husband's potential protest or an intrinsic halachic defect, and examines the Ran's fundamental chakira between shliach laholachah and shliach lekabbalah—questioning whether the woman was already divorced at the moment of transmission.
This shiur on Gittin 2a delves into the opening Mishna that requires a shaliach bringing a get from medinas hayam (overseas) to declare "befanai nechtat, befanai nechtat" (in my presence it was written, in my presence it was signed). Rabbi Zweig begins by examining the fundamental dispute between the Tanna Kamma and Rabban Gamliel regarding which locations qualify as "medinas hayam." The Tanna Kamma holds that only medinas hayam requires the declaration, but "reckon with Hager" (near lands) does not. Rabban Gamliel disagrees, extending the requirement even to reckon with Hager. The shiur analyzes Rashi (רש"י)'s interpretation that medinas hayam means chutz la'aretz (outside Eretz Yisrael), except for Bavel. Rashi states "kol chutz la'aretz kora lehem medinas hayam bar mibavel." This raises Tosafos (תוספות)'s fundamental question: why does the Mishna use the term "medinas hayam" instead of the clearer halachic terminology "chutz la'aretz"? Tosafos explains that medinas hayam specifically refers to lands far away that require crossing the sea (yam), not merely any chutz la'aretz. According to Tosafos, the term captures a specific geographic reality—when you must cross the sea to reach a place, you are uprooting yourself (oiker) from where you are. Even if the distance is shorter than traveling overland, crossing the sea creates a fundamental separation that makes the place "far away" in a qualitative, not merely quantitative, sense. This is why one makes the bracha of "she'asani nissim" upon crossing the sea. The Satmar Rebbe's position is cited that you don't make this bracha in an airplane if you could have walked by land, highlighting that the act of crossing the sea—being separated from terra firma—is what creates the status of medinas hayam.
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 2a
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.
