A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why is a get signed shelo lishma by kosher eidim only pasul mid'Rabbanan and not batul? The shiur analyzes the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s chiddush that eidim pasulim are "nothing" (hence only pasul d'Rabbanan), but shelo lishma creates a real chasima that could have been pasul mid'Oraisa. The distinction reveals a fundamental split between the din of eidus and the din of chasima.
This shiur explores Masechta Gittin daf 4a, focusing on the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s treatment of eidim chasima versus eidim mesira in the laws of divorce. The central tension is: if eidim chasima are only a din d'Rabbanan (because mid'Oraisa only eidim mesira are required), why should a get signed shelo lishma or by pasul witnesses ever be worse than simply "missing" the Rabbinic requirement? The Rambam in Perek Alef, Halacha (הלכה) Yud Gimmel establishes that eidim mesira are the ikar mid'Oraisa, and eidim chasima were instituted by the Chachamim lest the eidim mesira die. Nevertheless, l'chatchila one should have both eidim mesira and eidim chasima "she'ikar hageirushin b'eidim mesira." The Rambam rules that if a get has kosher eidim chasima but is given without eidim mesira (or with pasul eidim mesira), it is kasher—though there is a minority view (yesh omrim) that holds it pasul.
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 4a
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.
