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.
When an animal damages crops, the Torah prescribes a unique payment formula based on multiplying the damaged area by sixty. Does this formula redefine the actual loss, or does it merely create a payment mechanism that still acknowledges the full damage sustained? The Gemara explores whether someone who ate in doubt should pay the higher-quality amount, examining how the principle of motzi me-chaveiro alav haraya applies when payments fall within the range of actual loss.
What makes testimony valid when different witnesses testify to different parts of the same event? The Gemara debates whether the principle of "davar v'lo chatzi davar" (complete testimony, not partial) disqualifies witnesses who testify separately to theft and slaughter. Rashi's approach reveals that the issue is not merely combining elements, but whether each witness's statement is independently meaningful.
Why is a ganav who sells a stolen animal on Shabbos exempt from the fourfold/fivefold payment? The shiur analyzes whether this exemption stems from kam lei b'derabbah or from the absence of a valid mechira. The Rashba's principle that matana resembles mechira when it is "nishtarish b'chet" is explored, along with the Rambam's position on hekdesh and the distinction between giving to bedek habayis versus mizbe'ach.
When a ganav shechts a stolen animal l'avodah zarah, why isn't he patur from payment since it's already isur hana'ah? The shiur explores the fundamental machloket Rashi-Tosafot on whether the isur derives from the act of shechita or from the din shechita itself. The Gemara's application of davar garem be'mamon ke'mamon domi extends the analysis to when borrowed animals become niskal.
