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.
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.
