No community start suggestion yet.
Can a husband revoke a get after appointing a shliach to deliver it? The Gemara (גמרא) presents a dispute between Rav Nachman and Rav Sheshet on whether chozer bo applies. The shiur traces multiple approaches: is this bitul of the get itself (like a sefer Torah (תורה) that cannot be undone), or only bitul of the shlichus? The resolution hinges on whether the shemah aspect of the get is already complete or still being accomplished.
The shiur opens with the core dispute on Gittin 32a between Rav Nachman, who holds chozer bo (the husband cannot revoke the get), and Rav Sheshet, who holds ein chozer bo (revocation is possible). The Gemara (גמרא) challenges Rav Nachman from a parallel case in kiddushin where one can be chozer within thirty days. The difficulty is understanding why kiddushin can be revoked but a get cannot. Rabbi Zweig explores the fundamental question: what exactly does "bitul haget" mean? According to Rashi (רש"י), when you revoke a get, you are being mevatel the shlichus—you're removing the agent's authority—but not necessarily invalidating the get document itself. According to the Ran, chozer bo means you cannot act against the get's validity at all; the revocation attempt itself is ineffective.
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 32a
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.
