A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When a husband protests a divorce after delivery, does that invalidate the get? The shiur develops the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s framework that "befanai nichtav befanai nechtam" does not create formal kiyum of the get—it only neutralizes the husband's protest. Without actual kiyum, a get may still work mid'Oraisa but requires eidei mesira mid'Rabanan, creating a complex interplay of chazakos and safek.
This shiur analyzes Gittin 3a, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of a get (bill of divorce) where the husband (baal) protests (me'ar) after delivery, claiming the get is forged. The Gemara establishes that the entire issue is only d'Rabanan—the concern is rabbinic—yet the consequences can be severe. The central question is: what is the status of such a get, and when does the baal's protest carry weight? Rabbi Zweig presents a fundamental approach to understanding the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position across multiple halachos in Hilchos Gerushin. He argues that the Rambam reads the Gemara very differently from the conventional understanding. According to the standard reading, when a shliach says "befanai nichtav befanai nechtam" (it was written and signed in my presence), this constitutes kiyum ha-get—formal validation of the document. However, the Rambam holds that "befanai nichtav" is NOT kiyum ha-get at all. Rather, it serves a single purpose: to insulate against problems if the baal comes and protests. The get itself remains a get she'einah mekuyemes—an unvalidated document.
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 3a
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.
