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.
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.
