A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
If Hashem (ה׳)'s name was written without proper intent and rewritten over the original, is the document valid? The Gemara (גמרא) debates whether rewriting creates a disqualifying aesthetic defect (zeh keili viAnveihu) in a Sefer Torah (תורה), and whether this principle is binding or merely aspirational. The shiur analyzes the dispute between Rav Yehuda and the Chachamim.
This shiur examines Gittin 20a, focusing on a case where Hashem (ה׳)'s name was written without the proper intent (sh'lo lishma) and then rewritten on top of the original writing. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses whether such rewriting renders the document invalid, particularly in the context of a Sefer Torah (תורה) versus a get (divorce document). The Gemara presents the positions of Rav Hissa and Rav Acha bar Yaakov. Rav Hissa maintains that according to the Chachamim, rewriting renders both a get and a Sefer Torah invalid, while according to Rav Yehuda, both remain valid. Rav Acha bar Yaakov distinguishes between the two: by a Sefer Torah, the rewriting is problematic due to the principle of zeh keili viAnveihu (beautifying the mitzvah (מצוה)), but by a get, it remains valid since this aesthetic principle does not apply. The key question becomes whether zeh keili viAnveihu is an absolute disqualification (me'akev) or merely a preference (l'chatchila).
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 20a
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.
