No community start suggestion yet.
Does the Torah (תורה)'s requirement of "v'kasav" (he shall write) apply to the writing of the get, the signatures of the witnesses, or both? The shiur analyzes the fundamental dispute between Rav Meir (who holds chasimas eidim karti) and Rav Elazar (who holds af eidei mesirah karsi) regarding which elements of a get must be written lishmah, exploring the implications of kasav she'mechubar and kasav tolash.
This shiur delves into a complex sugya on Gittin 3b concerning the requirement of lishmah (proper intent) in writing a get (bill of divorce). The fundamental question is how to understand the Torah (תורה)'s directive "v'kasav v'nasan lah" — what exactly must be written lishmah? Rabbi Zweig opens with a fundamental challenge to the Gemara (גמרא)'s assumption. The Gemara assumes that according to Rav Meir, who holds "chasimas eidim karti" (the essence of the get is the witnesses' signatures), only the chasimah (signing) needs to be lishmah, not the ksiva (writing). But this is perplexing: if v'kasav means you need a proper get, and a proper get according to Rav Meir requires chasimas eidim, why wouldn't the entire process — both the writing of the text and the signing — need to be lishmah? How does the Gemara know that Rav Meir doesn't require ksiva lishmah?
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.
