No community start suggestion yet.
Is a get fundamentally a shtar (legal document) or a parshah (prescribed text)? The shiur explores the machlokes between Rav Meir and Rav Eliezer on whether chasima lishmah is required, arguing that Rashi (רש"י) understands Rav Meir to hold that a get is a shtar (requiring edei chasima to complete it), while Rav Eliezer holds it's merely a parshah, making edei mesira determinative.
This shiur analyzes Gittin 3b-4a, focusing on the fundamental question of whether chasima lishmah (signing for the sake of the specific get) is required, and what this reveals about the nature of a get itself. The central tension arises from the Gemara (גמרא)'s statement that according to Rav Meir, one needs chasima lishmah but not ksiva lishmah, while according to Rav Eliezer, one needs ksiva lishmah but not chasima lishmah. Rabbi Zweig begins by addressing a fundamental difficulty: The Gemara seems to say that according to Rav Meir, you don't need ksiva (writing) at all—only chasima. But this cannot be literally true, as the get must be written. The answer, he suggests, lies in understanding what "ksiva" means in context: not that there's no requirement to write the get, but rather that there's no requirement of ksiva lishmah on the body of the get itself—only on the chasima.
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-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.
