No community start suggestion yet.
Why does a get require witnesses to sign lishma (for her sake) according to Rav Elazar? The shiur develops the principle that eidei chasima accomplish something fundamental—they transform the document into a valid shtar, even when eidei mesira are the primary mechanism of divorce. This explains why we decree chasima lishma, lest one come to write the get itself shelo lishma.
The shiur opens with a foundational question: according to Rav Elazar, who holds eidei mesira karsi (the witnesses of delivery validate the get), why do we pasul a get signed by witnesses who are related (mezuya mitoch)? If witnesses are not required for the get's validity, why does their signing improperly create a problem? Rashi (רש"י) explains that the concern is you might rely on the eidei chasima if the eidei mesira die. This reliance would be problematic if the witnesses are pasul (related or otherwise invalid). But Tosafot challenges this: if eidei chasima signed shelo lishma (not for her sake), which according to Rav Elazar is not me'akev, why would this create a problem? You're not relying on them for anything substantive—the get is valid through eidei mesira.
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 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.
