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.
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.
