A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does a shliach lehalchah bringing a get from Chutz La'aretz have to say "lefanai nechtav v'nechtam" while a shliach lekabbalah does not? The shiur analyzes the Ran and Rashi (רש"י)'s approaches and develops a distinction between testifying about the paper (the get document) versus testifying about the divorce (the marriage status). A shliach lekabbalah's testimony after the divorce has occurred may have no ne'emanus, requiring two eidim instead.
The shiur begins by examining the core question of Gittin 5a: why does a shliach lehalchah (agent to deliver a get) have to declare "lefanai nechtav v'nechtam" (before me it was written and signed) when bringing a get from Chutz La'aretz, while a shliach lekabbalah (agent to receive the get) does not need to make this declaration? The Ran's explanation is presented first. The Ran argues that when a husband gives a get to a shliach lehalchah, the divorce is not yet complete at that moment—the woman remains married until she receives the get. Therefore, the husband has not yet made his final decision (gomer nefesh) and might come back and contest the get (be me'arer). However, when the husband gives the get to a shliach lekabbalah, the divorce is complete immediately at that moment in Chutz La'aretz. Since the husband has already made his final decision, there is no real concern (only a chash d'rabbanan, a rabbinic concern) that he will contest it later. According to the Ran, once the divorce has already occurred, the concern for me'arur is minimal.
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 5a
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.
