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.
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.
