A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why must a get from outside Eretz Yisrael be declared "lefanecha nechtam, lefanecha nechtem"? The Gemara (גמרא) explores two possible reasons: concern that witnesses are not expert in writing "lishmah" (Rabba), or concern that witnesses are not always available (ein adam matzui l'kaymo, Rava). The shiur analyzes why these reasons cannot both be true simultaneously and how each position reads the Mishna's language differently.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of the fundamental dispute between Rabba and Rava regarding the requirement of declaring "lefanecha nechtam, lefanecha nechtem" when delivering a get from chutz la'aretz. The Gemara (גמרא) begins with a Mishna stating that one who brings a get from medina to medina in chutz la'aretz must make this declaration, but the precise inference of the Mishna's language creates significant interpretive challenges. The core question revolves around two possible reasons for this requirement: (1) concern that people outside Eretz Yisrael are not expert (ein bekim) in the requirement to write a get lishmah—for the specific purpose of that divorce (Rabba's position), and (2) concern that witnesses are not readily available (ein adam matzui l'kaymo) to testify to the validity of the get (Rava's position).
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 2b
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.
