No community start suggestion yet.
Why does a get require kiyum (authentication) by witnesses when the Torah (תורה) itself establishes that witnesses who sign a document are credible? The shiur analyzes the machlokes Rambam (רמב"ם)-Ramban (רמב"ן) whether shtaros are d'oraisa or d'rabbanan, exploring whether eidim chatumim can be validated through the chazaka of lo chotef inish l'zayef. The discussion reveals fundamental tensions about what chashash kiyum addresses—forgery, found documents, or lack of lishmah.
The Gemara (גמרא) on Gittin 3a presents a fundamental question about kiyum shtaros (authentication of documents): why do we need kiyum when the Torah (תורה) establishes that eidim chatumim al hashtar (witnesses signed on a document) have the status of eidim she'ne'echravu u'she'nechtamu b'beis din (witnesses whose testimony was confirmed in court)? If witnesses who sign are automatically credible d'oraisa, what necessitates the rabbinic requirement of kiyum? The Gemara's answer introduces the principle of ein makasum ela shtar—people generally do not forge documents due to the chazaka of lo chotef inish l'zayef (the presumption that people lack the audacity to forge). This chazaka removes the d'oraisa concern about forgery. However, the Rabbanan instituted a d'rabbanan chashash of ziyuf (concern for forgery), requiring kiyum through comparison of signatures to eliminate even the rabbinic-level concern.
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 3a
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.
