A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What does "chasimah lishmah" mean when witnesses sign a get? The shiur develops a novel understanding that lishmah doesn't mean "for the sake of this woman" but rather that the witnesses are creating an instrument of divorce—transforming the document from mere testimony (raayah) into an active kinyan object (cheifetz gershon) that effects the divorce itself.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental sugya in Gittin 3b concerning the machlokes between Rav Meir (eidei chasimah karsi) and Rav Elazar (eidei mesirah karsi). Rabbi Zweig begins by examining several difficulties in understanding the Gemara (גמרא)'s proof that according to Rav Meir, there is no requirement of ksiva lishmah (writing for the sake of the woman), only chasimah lishmah (signing for her sake). The first major question concerns a case where witnesses signed a get that was later planted in the ground (mechubar l'karka). The Gemara derives from here that only chasimah requires lishmah, not ksiva. But Rabbi Zweig asks: if there truly were a din of ksiva lishmah, why would writing it while mechubar invalidate it? The problem isn't in the writing itself—you could have given the entire object (e.g., the whole animal if written on a horn) to the woman. The invalidation only occurs because of a hefsek (interruption) between the writing/signing and the giving. This suggests the entire halacha (הלכה) is about the connection between chasimah and nesinah, not about a deficiency in the ksiva itself.
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.
