No community start suggestion yet.
Why aren't pasul witnesses who sign a get grounds for nullifying the divorce entirely when we don't even need their signatures? The shiur develops the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s framework that witnesses on a get serve two separate functions: creating the document (tikun ha'shtaר) and testifying to the act of delivery (eidus mesirah). Each function has its own rules for when invalid witnesses invalidate the get.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental question in Gittin 4a regarding witnesses who sign a get (bill of divorce). The Gemara (גמרא) begins with the principle that if eidei mesirah karsei (witnesses at delivery suffice), then pasul witnesses who signed the get should be irrelevant—they accomplish nothing, so their disqualification shouldn't matter. Yet the Gemara changes course and declares such a get pasul (invalid). Rabbi Zweig explores what changed in the Gemara's reasoning. The Rambam (רמב"ם) in Hilchos Gerushin presents a complex framework. In Perek Alef, halacha (הלכה) 17, the Rambam rules that if the witnesses are pasul, the get is pasul mid'Rabbanan (rabbinically invalid). He extends this even to cases where one witness is pasul and one kosher. In Perek Gimmel, halacha 8, the Rambam adds that witnesses who signed sh'lo lishmah (not for the sake of this divorce) are also pasul, and he cites a Yesh Mi She'omer who holds it's pasul mid'oraysa (biblically invalid). The shiur identifies several major difficulties in the Rambam's presentation.
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.
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.
