No community start suggestion yet.
Does a get require witnesses to sign lishmah according to Rav Elazar? The Gemara (גמרא) infers from a braisa about three invalid gittin that Rav Elazar permits marriage lechatchilah even without witness signatures. Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) differ on whether this proves no rabbinic requirement of lishmah exists, or whether witness signatures remain required lechatchilah though their absence doesn't invalidate the get.
This shiur analyzes Gittin 3b's discussion of whether witness signatures on a get require lishmah (intent for the specific divorce) according to Rav Elazar. The Gemara (גמרא) attempts to prove from a braisa discussing three types of invalid gittin that Rav Elazar holds there is no requirement of lishmah even mid'rabanan for witness signatures. The braisa lists three gittin that are pasul mid'rabanan but if the woman remarried we don't force her to divorce: (1) a get without witness signatures but with the husband's handwriting, (2) a get with witness signatures but without the husband's handwriting, and (3) a get written by a scribe with one witness. Rav Elazar is machshir (validates) these cases. The Gemara initially understands this to mean Rav Elazar permits marriage lechatchilah without witness signatures, proving he holds there's no din of lishmah even mid'rabanan.
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.
