No community start suggestion yet.
What is the din of sirtut (lined paper) for tefillin, mezuzah, and sefer Torah (תורה)? The shiur analyzes a fundamental dispute between the Rambam (רמב"ם) and Rabbeinu Tam about whether sirtut is a din in the klaf (parchment) itself or a din in the writing, and resolves contradictions in both the Rambam and the Rosh about whether three or four words require sirtut.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of the laws of sirtut (writing kisvei hakodesh on lined paper) as discussed in Gittin 6b and its application to tefillin, mezuzah, and sefer Torah (תורה). The Gemara (גמרא) in Menachos establishes that tefillin don't require sirtut, yet the Gemara in Gittin seems to contradict this by stating that one cannot write more than three or four words without sirtut. This creates a fundamental tension that the Rishonim struggle to resolve. The shiur begins with the Bahag's position and then examines Tosafot's approach extensively. Tosafot distinguishes between different types of usage of pesukim: when citing a verse as a source or drasha versus when using verses poetically. Tosafot then addresses the core issue: if tefillin don't require sirtut, how can we explain the Gemara's statement that writing kisvei kodesh requires sirtut? Tosafot explains that when sirtut is required, it's sufficient to line only the top of the page, and this rule applies to aggada and halacha (הלכה) but not necessarily to sefer Torah where every line requires sirtut.
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 6b
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.
