No community start suggestion yet.
When witnesses sign a get shelo lishmo (not for its proper purpose), is this mezuyaf mitocho—a Torah (תורה)-level invalidation? The shiur analyzes the dispute between Rav Ashi and the earlier Gemara (גמרא) concerning whether improper signatures create a Biblical defect or merely a rabbinic one. Rashi (רש"י)'s approach differs sharply from Tosafos (תוספות) regarding what mezuyaf mitocho means and whether witnesses who are gentiles can create this problem at all.
This shiur on Gittin 3b-4a examines the complex sugya of mezuyaf mitocho (a document invalidated from within) and its application to a get where the witnesses signed shelo lishmo (not for its proper purpose). The Gemara (גמרא) presents multiple approaches to reconciling the Mishna with various Tannaitic opinions regarding whether witness signatures must be written lishmo. The first teretz in the Gemara suggests that the Mishna follows Rabbi Elazar, who holds that eidim mesirah kartei (the witnesses who deliver the get are the effective witnesses). According to this approach, the signatures are not strictly necessary, but if witnesses do sign shelo lishmo, the get is mezuyaf mitocho and thus invalid. This establishes a halachic principle that even according to Rabbi Elazar, if there is a chasimah (signature), it must be done lishmo.
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 3b-4a
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.
When an animal damages crops, the Torah prescribes a unique payment formula based on multiplying the damaged area by sixty. Does this formula redefine the actual loss, or does it merely create a payment mechanism that still acknowledges the full damage sustained? The Gemara explores whether someone who ate in doubt should pay the higher-quality amount, examining how the principle of motzi me-chaveiro alav haraya applies when payments fall within the range of actual loss.
What makes testimony valid when different witnesses testify to different parts of the same event? The Gemara debates whether the principle of "davar v'lo chatzi davar" (complete testimony, not partial) disqualifies witnesses who testify separately to theft and slaughter. Rashi's approach reveals that the issue is not merely combining elements, but whether each witness's statement is independently meaningful.
Why is a ganav who sells a stolen animal on Shabbos exempt from the fourfold/fivefold payment? The shiur analyzes whether this exemption stems from kam lei b'derabbah or from the absence of a valid mechira. The Rashba's principle that matana resembles mechira when it is "nishtarish b'chet" is explored, along with the Rambam's position on hekdesh and the distinction between giving to bedek habayis versus mizbe'ach.
When a ganav shechts a stolen animal l'avodah zarah, why isn't he patur from payment since it's already isur hana'ah? The shiur explores the fundamental machloket Rashi-Tosafot on whether the isur derives from the act of shechita or from the din shechita itself. The Gemara's application of davar garem be'mamon ke'mamon domi extends the analysis to when borrowed animals become niskal.
