A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Rambam (רמב"ם) rule that a husband's claim of forgery renders a get vadai pasul de'oraisa when witnesses are unknown, but only creates a sofek when the get is lost? The shiur develops a fundamental chakira: an unknown-witness get creates a real sofek in the shtar itself, which invalidates even the ma'aseh gerushin testimony — making it vadai pasul because mi pi am v'lo mi pikei sofer. The lost-get case, however, remains a sofek megureshes because eidim chasumin retain their chazakah.
This advanced Gemara (גמרא) shiur on Gittin 3a analyzes a series of halachos in the Rambam (רמב"ם) (Hilchos Gerushin, Perek 7) concerning kiyum ha-get (validation of divorce documents) in Eretz Yisrael versus chutz la'aretz. The Rambam presents several seemingly contradictory rulings that form the foundation of the shiur's analysis. The Rambam rules in halacha (הלכה) alef that in Eretz Yisrael, a shaliach can deliver a get even if he did not witness the writing or signing, and even if he doesn't know who the witnesses are — without saying "befanai nichtav, befanai nechtam." The woman is divorced based solely on eidei mesira (witnesses to the delivery). In halacha beis, however, the Rambam states that if the husband claims the get is forged and the witnesses are completely unknown (lo yoda eidav klal), and the get cannot be mekuyam (validated), then "ein megureshes" — she is definitively not divorced, a din de'oraisa. Yet in the same halacha, if the get is lost (avad ha-get), she is only a "sofek megureshes."
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.
