No community start suggestion yet.
What role does sirtut (lining parchment) play in holy writings? The shiur distinguishes three separate halachos: a halacha (הלכה) l'Moshe miSinai requiring permanent etching for Sefer Torah (תורה) and mezuzah, a kisvei kodesh standard requiring neat writing (permitted with lead), and a highlighting requirement for legal documents. This framework resolves apparent contradictions in Tosafot and the Rambam (רמב"ם).
This shiur analyzes Gittin 6b and the complex laws of sirtut (lining parchment) that apply to different categories of sacred writings. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses a dispute between Rabbi Yitzchok, who holds that one may not write more than two words without sirtut, and a braisa that permits three words without sirtut. The question emerges: what is the fundamental nature of sirtut? Rabbi Zweig begins by examining Tosafot, who addresses an apparent contradiction. Tosafot in Sota holds that Sefer Torah (תורה) does not require sirtut, while Rashi (רש"י) and the consensus of Rishonim maintain that it does. Tosafot here in Gittin establishes that Sefer Torah and mezuzah do require sirtut (as a halacha (הלכה) l'Moshe miSinai), but tefillin do not. Tosafot then addresses a Gemara in Menachos (34b) that seems to assume tefillin do not need sirtut—since the Gemara says worn-out tefillin cannot be converted into a mezuzah only because of the principle of "ein moridim" (we don't downgrade from higher to lower kedusha), implying both have the same sirtut requirements. Tosafot resolves this by suggesting the case involves a sofer who cannot write neatly without guidelines—in which case even tefillin require sirtut to ensure beautiful writing (zeh keili v'anveihu).
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 6b
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.
