A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Does the requirement for witnesses to sign a get (divorce document) "lishma" (for the specific purpose) apply when that requirement is only mid'rabbanan? The shiur analyzes three approaches to the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of whether "befanav nechtam" (signed in his presence) must be declared when eidei chasima's lishma requirement is rabbinic rather than Torah (תורה)-mandated.
This shiur examines a fundamental question in the laws of gittin: when witnesses sign a get, must they do so "lishma" (with specific intent for this divorce), and if so, must the messenger declare "befanav nechtam" (it was signed in his presence)? The discussion centers on the talmudic passage dealing with the requirement of witness signatures on a get, specifically when this requirement is instituted mid'rabbanan through the enactment of tikun ha'olam. The Gemara (גמרא) presents a tension: according to one opinion, witness signatures on a get are not required from Torah (תורה) law but only rabbinically (mid'rabbanan) as a takanas chachamim for tikun ha'olam. Yet the Gemara suggests that even when only rabbinically required, the witnesses still must sign lishma, and the messenger must declare "befanav nechtam" to prevent the husband from later denying the validity of the get.
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
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.
