No community start suggestion yet.
When a husband declares a get "batel," is he nullifying the document itself or merely canceling the agent's authority? The Gemara (גמרא)'s debate between Rav Nachman and Rav Sheshet hinges on whether lishmah is embedded in the writing or whether bitul targets the agency. The shiur analyzes Tosafos (תוספות)'s principle that lo asu divrei mevatel ma'aseh and traces implications for whether a rescinded get can later be revalidated.
This shiur examines a fundamental dispute in Gittin 32b between Rav Nachman and Rav Sheshet regarding the nature of bitul (nullification) of a get. The core question is whether a husband's declaration of "batel" (nullified) constitutes an act of revoking the get itself or merely an act of canceling the agent's (shliach's) authority to deliver the get. The Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion has profound implications for the mechanics of divorce and the halachic status of a document written lishmah (for the specific woman). Rav Nachman holds that one cannot be mevatel (nullify) a get that has already been written, because the writing creates a ma'aseh (concrete act) that cannot be undone by mere words. According to this view, when a husband says "batel," he is only revoking the shlichut—the agent's appointment. The get itself remains intact. Rav Sheshet, by contrast, maintains that bitul does nullify the get itself, rendering it a "chas v'shalom" (a mere piece of parchment with no halachic validity). The shiur explores whether this means the get is permanently destroyed or whether it can be reinstated.
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 32b
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.
