A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When witnesses cannot write, can they sign on indentations or stencils? The shiur unpacks a multi-layered dispute: Rashi (רש"י) sees valid signing as producing a recognizable result (favoring mekarin); Tosafot requires the act of writing itself (favoring stencil). The Rambam (רמב"ם) forges a third position—Shabbos (שבת) requires the act, gittin require the result—so dio-on-sikra is forbidden on Shabbos yet permitted (at the rabbinic level) for gittin when agunas are at stake.
The shiur opens with the Gemara (גמרא) on Gittin 9b discussing the case of witnesses who do not know how to sign (adam she'einam yodem lach'tom). The Gemara permits mekarin lahem nir—engraving grooves or indentations in parchment and then filling them with ink. The Rambam (רמב"ם) (Hilchos Geirushim 3:20) extends this, permitting even roshem—writing with rok (saliva or a non-permanent medium)—on condition that the witness later overwrites it with ink. He limits this leniency to gittin and explicitly justifies it on two grounds: the rabbinic obligation of witness signatures (eidim mesira karsi, according to Rabbi Elazar), and the need to prevent agunos. The Rambam's position implies that were signing biblically required, even this minimal result would be insufficient. Rabbi Zweig's central difficulty is a Gemara later in the masechta. According to Rabbi Meir, witness signatures are biblically required (eidim chasima karsi). If so, how can the Rambam's formula stand? The entire kulah rests on a rabbinic foundation; yet the Gemara itself operates according to Rabbi Meir. This tension drives the analysis.
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 9b
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.
