A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the messenger delivering a get need to declare "befanei nichtas ufanei nichtas"? The shiur analyzes the machloket Rav and Rava about whether the concern is forgery or lack of lishmah, examining when this declaration is required and when two witnesses can authenticate the get without it. The sugya reveals deep questions about whether a get must be a cheftza of sefer keritut or simply a kinyan mechanism.
This shiur analyzes Gittin 2a, focusing on the fundamental requirements for a valid get (bill of divorce) and the declaration of "befanei nichtas ufanei nichtas" that must be made when delivering a get from outside Eretz Yisrael. Rabbi Zweig begins by establishing that there are two distinct halachic dimensions to a get: the din of kinyan (acquisition/transfer mechanism) and the din of sefer keritut (document of severance). The requirement that the get be written lishmah (specifically for this husband and wife) relates to the sefer keritut aspect, not merely to hilchos kinyanim. The Gemara (גמרא) presents a fundamental debate between Rav and Rava regarding why a messenger bringing a get from outside Eretz Yisrael must declare "befanei nichtas ufanei nichtas" (written and signed in my presence). According to the havah amina of the Gemara, there is a genuine concern that the get might not have been written lishmah, since people outside Eretz Yisrael may not know this requirement. However, the maskana (conclusion) is that everyone knows the law of lishmah, so the only concern is that the husband might try to be motzi laaz (cast aspersion) on the get by falsely claiming it wasn't written properly. The declaration prevents this by establishing that the messenger witnessed the writing.
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.
