No community start suggestion yet.
What makes a get a valid shtar—the witnesses who sign it or those present at its delivery? The shiur develops a fundamental chakira between Rav Meir and Rabbi Eliezer: both agree a get must function as a shtar kinyan, but disagree on which witnesses create that shtar status. This resolves Rav Kibeger's question about eidus shebatla and explains why lishmo applies differently to writing versus signing.
This shiur on Gittin 3b analyzes the fundamental machlokes between Rav Meir and Rabbi Eliezer regarding which witnesses are essential (karsei) for a get: eidei chasimah (witnesses who sign) or eidei mesirah (witnesses who see the delivery). The Gemara (גמרא) asks: who holds you need both ksiva lishmo and chasimah lishmo? It cannot be Rav Meir, because according to him you need chasimah lishmo but not ksiva lishmo. Rabbi Zweig presents Rav Kibeger's fundamental question: According to those who hold ksav sofer v'eid echad (the scribe's handwriting plus one witness) is kosher, the sofer himself functions as an eid echad. His handwriting is his "signature." Therefore, you should need ksiva lishmo for the sofer, just as you need chasimah lishmo for witnesses—because his writing IS his chasimah. Furthermore, if two witnesses sign lishmo but the sofer wrote shelo lishmo, this should create eidus shebatla u'mektzasa batla kula (partial disqualification invalidates the whole testimony). Rav Kibeger concludes there is no din of eidus shebatla here, which requires explanation.
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 3b
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.
