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.
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.
