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.
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.
