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.
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.
