No community start suggestion yet.
Why must a get be written lishmah, and what does lishmah mean? The Gemara (גמרא) debates whether the requirement of "befanai nechtam" addresses eidim matzui lekaimo or bikin lishmah. Rabbi Zweig argues that lishmah has two dimensions: the get must be written for the specific woman AND after the husband has decided to divorce her—a sefer krisus, not just a preemptive contract. The benei chutz la'aretz weren't lacking Torah (תורה) knowledge; they understood marriage as primarily kinyan-based rather than requiring the additional kedusha-dimension that demands lishmah.
This shiur presents an in-depth analysis of the opening Gemara (גמרא) of Masechta Gittin (2a), focusing on the fundamental requirement that a get (bill of divorce) must be written lishmah (for the sake of the specific woman being divorced). The Gemara presents a debate between Rabbah and Rava regarding why a shaliach bringing a get from chutz la'aretz must declare "befanai nechtam, befanai nechtam" (it was written and signed in my presence). Rabbah holds the concern is "ein bikin lishmah"—they are not expert in the requirement of lishmah. Rava holds the concern is "ein eidim matzuin lekaimo"—witnesses are not readily available to establish the document's validity. Rabbi Zweig begins by highlighting a fundamental difficulty in Rashi (רש"י)'s commentary. Rashi explains that the people in chutz la'aretz are "ein benei midina sayan benei Torah (תורה)"—they are not Torah scholars and don't know that a get must be written lishmah. The Gemara then asks "mai benaihu"—what is the practical difference between Rabbah's and Rava's positions? Rabbi Zweig notes that Rashi uses the peculiar phrase "memaleh shailin lei"—one should ask him—rather than stating that one MUST ask. This choice of language is critical: if there were a genuine safek d'Oraisa (biblical doubt) about lishmah, asking would be mandatory, not merely advisable. Furthermore, if the concern were truly a biblical doubt, how could any woman divorced in chutz la'aretz ever remarry in Eretz Yisrael? The Mishna's framework only makes sense if this is not a fundamental concern but a more limited precaution.
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 2a
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.
