No community start suggestion yet.
Must canceling a get (bittul ha-get) be done through explicit speech, or can it work through gilui da'at — indirect evidence of intent? The Gemara (גמרא)'s case of chasing the shaliach reveals a fundamental chakira: Abaye and Rava dispute whether you need clear words to cancel, or whether demonstrated intent suffices. The shiur develops multiple frameworks — levels of hochacha, the role of devarim she'be'lev, and whether bittul targets the shaliach or the get itself — to resolve tensions between the Rishonim.
This shiur analyzes Gittin 32a and the mechanisms of bittul ha-get (canceling a divorce). The primary question is whether a husband can cancel a get through gilui da'at (indirect demonstration of intent) or whether he must use explicit dibur (speech). The Gemara (גמרא) presents a case where a man chases his shaliach (agent) after sending him to deliver a get, attempting to stop him. The Gemara's havamina is that such chasing should constitute bittul, but the maskana rejects this. Tosafot adds complexity by noting that when the husband chases the shaliach, we infer litzuri komachavan (that he intends to cancel), yet the get is not batel—why not? Rabbi Zweig explores two major approaches to the Gemara. The first approach focuses on levels of hochacha (evidence). According to this reading, Abaye and Rava dispute what threshold of evidence is sufficient to cancel a get. A weaker indication (e.g., stuffing cotton in one's ears to avoid hearing the cancellation) is insufficient even according to Rava. A very strong indication (e.g., explicitly screaming "get batel" in front of witnesses) is sufficient even according to Abaye. The machlokes centers on intermediate cases: does running after the shaliach constitute enough of a hochacha? Abaye might hold it does not, while Rava might hold it does—but the Gemara's maskana is that even running is insufficient unless accompanied by proper dibur in the presence of the right parties (shaliach or wife).
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 32a
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.
