A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Who validates a get—the witnesses who sign it or those who see it delivered? The shiur examines the fundamental dispute between Rabbi Meir (eidei chasimah karsei) and Rabbi Elazar (eidei mesirah karsei), analyzing the Ramban (רמב"ן)'s difficulty: if signing witnesses aren't essential according to Rabbi Elazar, why must they sign lishmah when present? The discussion explores whether chasimas ha'eidim is part of the get itself or merely testimony.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental dispute in Maseches Gittin regarding the nature of witnesses in a get (bill of divorce). The Gemara (גמרא) presents two positions: Rabbi Meir holds eidei chasimah karsei (the witnesses who sign the get validate it), while Rabbi Elazar holds eidei mesirah karsei (the witnesses who observe its delivery validate it). Rabbi Zweig begins by examining the Gemara's proof that according to Rabbi Meir, the chasimah (signing) itself is considered part of the kesivah (writing). The Mishna states that one may not sign on a document while it is still attached to the ground (mechubar lekarka), but if one did so and then detached it and delivered it, the get is valid. This proves that as long as there is no interruption between the chasimah and the mesirah (delivery), the get is valid—even though the actual writing occurred while the document was attached. This demonstrates that according to Rabbi Meir, the chasimah is the essential element of kesivah, not merely the writing of the text.
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.
