No community start suggestion yet.
Does the requirement to say "b'fanai nechtav u'b'fanai nechtam" include testifying to lishmah, or is it merely about witnessing the physical act of writing? The shiur analyzes the Ramban (רמב"ן) and Rashba's fundamental machloket: whether lishmah is an integral quality of the writing itself (such that a get not written lishmah is not considered "written" at all), or whether lishmah is a separate halachic requirement distinct from the act of writing.
This shiur presents an in-depth analysis of Gittin 5b-6a, focusing on the requirement of lishmah (proper intent) in writing a get and the testimony required when delivering it. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses a dispute between Rav Achai, who requires the witness to have seen every letter (kol os v'os), and Rav Ami/Rav Assi, who do not require this level of scrutiny. Rav Elazar holds that even if only one line was written lishmah in the witness's presence, it is sufficient. The shiur identifies a fundamental difficulty: we pasken like Rava that the reason for b'fanai nechtav u'b'fanai nechtam is not lishmah but rather adam atzo m'kayeim (a person cannot authenticate his own document). If so, what is the function of requiring testimony beyond the basic b'fanai nechtam? Why would Rav Achai require seeing all the letters, and why would the Gemara mention lishmah at all?
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 5b-6a
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.
