No community start suggestion yet.
Does vechasav venasan mean the writing and giving must be consecutive acts, or does it define what constitutes a valid ksivas get? The shiur develops that a get written while still attached (mechubar) is not merely unkosher—it isn't a get at all, since only writing on something deliverable qualifies as ksiva. This chakira explains why Rav Meir holds chasima requires lishmah while ksiva does not, and raises whether eidei chasima function as part of the get or merely as testimony.
The Gemara (גמרא) on daf gimmel amud aleph opens by examining the principle of vechasav venasan—the Torah (תורה)'s juxtaposition of writing a get and delivering it. The straightforward reading suggests that there cannot be any interruption between the act of writing and the act of giving. Rabbi Zweig asks a fundamental question: why must this principle apply from the very beginning of the writing? Perhaps it means only that once the get is finished being written, it must be immediately deliverable, but the beginning of the writing process need not anticipate the eventual delivery. To sharpen the question: suppose we hold like Rabbeinu Tam that both ksiva (writing the text) and chasima (witnesses' signatures) require lishmah (proper intent for this specific divorce). Even so, why does the Gemara assume that writing while the parchment is still attached to the ground (mechuber) creates an "interruption" between ksiva and nesina? After all, by the time the writing is complete and the chasima is affixed (now detached/talush), there is no interruption between the completion of the get and its delivery. The interruption argument should only apply if vechasav venasan requires contiguity from the start of writing, not merely from its completion.
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 3a-b
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.
