A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Rambam (רמב"ם) rule that after verifying a get through kiyum bechosmo, you must still deliver it again? The shiur develops a yesod distinguishing two separate halachos in befanai nechtem: the kula that one witness suffices, and the chumra that no get may be delivered without prior verification—a takanas chachamim you cannot waive even when the signatures are later confirmed.
This advanced Gemara (גמרא) shiur analyzes a fundamental difficulty in the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s rulings in Hilchos Gerushin regarding the laws of befanai nechtem befanai nechtem—the requirement for a messenger delivering a get from overseas to testify that the get was written and signed in his presence. The central problem: the Rambam (Hilchos Gerushin 7:18) rules that if a messenger became mute (ilem) after delivering the get but before saying befanai nechtem, the beis din must verify the get through kiyum bechosmo (signature verification), but then the get must be delivered again. This seems redundant—once the get is verified, why re-deliver it? The shiur begins by examining Tosfos's difficulty with the Gemara's case. The Mishna states "im ein yachol leimar"—if he cannot say befanai nechtem, the get is verified through kiyum bechosmo. According to Rava, this refers to a case where the messenger was healthy (pikeach) when he delivered the get but then became a cheresh (deaf-mute). Tosfos asks: why didn't the Gemara cite a case of an ilem (mute person)? The Gemara's linguistic formulation ("v'lo yomar") suggests he was never able to speak, yet the case is one where he became unable (nischtateik). The Maharsha explains that Tosfos holds an ilem would be believed through kesav (written testimony), so there would be no chiddush. Rav Akiva Eiger challenges this: why not make the case "pikeach v'na'aseh ilem"—he was healthy and became mute?
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 5a
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.
