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.
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.
