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.
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.
