A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Is the declaration "bifanai nechtav u'bifanai nechtam" testimony about divorce or validation of the get document itself? The shiur develops a fundamental chakira between the Ramban (רמב"ן) (who views a shtar as testimony requiring two witnesses) and the Rambam (רמב"ם) (who treats kiyum shtar as document authentication—a matter of issur requiring only one witness). This distinction reshapes when and how a get can be validated.
This shiur presents an in-depth analysis of the fundamental dispute between the Rambam (רמב"ם) and the Ramban (רמב"ן) regarding the nature of documents (shtarot) and their validation. The central question is whether witnesses signing a shtar are testifying about an event or creating the legal reality through the document itself. Rabbi Zweig begins by identifying several core disputes: the Rambam (Hilchos Gerushin 7:24) holds a woman can remarry with a get that is not mekuyam (formally validated), while the Raavad requires kiyum. Similarly, Rashi (רש"י) and the Rivash disagree about whether a woman who is already divorced can later say "bifanai nechtav u'bifanai nechtam" (it was written and signed before me). According to Rashi, if she says it, she is believed; according to the Rivash (following the Raavad), her statement would not be believed after the fact. The Rivash also rules that if a shliach did not say bifanai nechtav when delivering the get and the husband dies, the shliach cannot validate the get afterward.
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 2a
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.
