No community start suggestion yet.
Why does a messenger delivering a get from chutz la'aretz need to declare "befanai nechtam befanai nechtam"? The shiur analyzes the fundamental dispute between Rav and Rava: whether this declaration is needed for verification of lishmah (written for her sake) or for kiyum shtarot (authenticating signatures). The Gemara (גמרא)'s question "ilaki yochol nami" and its implications for both positions are explored in depth.
The shiur undertakes a comprehensive analysis of Gittin 5a, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of the requirement for a messenger to declare "befanai nechtav befanai nechtam" (in my presence it was written, in my presence it was signed) when delivering a get from outside Eretz Yisrael. The central question revolves around understanding the nature of this requirement and the Gemara's challenge "ilaki yochol nami." Rabbi Zweig begins by examining the fundamental dispute between Rav and Rava. According to Rav, the entire takana of befanai nechtam was instituted because we lack witnesses in Eretz Yisrael who can testify that the get was written lishmah (for the sake of the specific woman). According to Rava, the takana was instituted to establish kiyum shtarot—authentication of the document's signatures—because witnesses may not be available locally to verify the authenticity of the signatures.
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 5a
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.
