No community start suggestion yet.
Does a get require ksav lishmah (writing for the sake of the specific woman)? The shiur analyzes a Tosafos (תוספות) challenging whether Rabbi Meir's position in the Mishna provides proof that ksav lishmah is not required, exploring the relationship between witness signatures (eidei chasimah) and witnesses to delivery (eidei mesirah), and distinguishing between requirements for a valid divorce versus requirements for a valid legal document (shtar).
This shiur presents a detailed analysis of Gittin 3b, focusing on a Tosafos (תוספות) that questions the Gemara (גמרא)'s proof regarding ksav lishmah. The central issue is whether a get must be written lishmah (for the sake of the specific woman being divorced) according to Rabbi Meir, and what the Mishna's discussion of various invalid gittin tells us about this requirement. The Gemara attempts to prove from Rabbi Meir that ksav lishmah is not required. This proof is based on understanding what Rabbi Meir means when he discusses a get written "mechubar" (attached to the ground) versus "talush" (detached). According to one interpretation, if the get was written mechubar and signed talush, it is valid according to Rabbi Meir, which would prove that ksav lishmah is not required.
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.
