No community start suggestion yet.
The Gemara (גמרא) on Gittin 4a asks how a get can have ksiva and chasima b'talush when replanting would seem to create an interruption. Tosafos (תוספות) introduces the chiddush that only hashrasha (replanting with roots taking hold) uproots the shem sefer—mere attachment to the ground does not. This leads to a fundamental chakira: is the prohibition of writing b'mechubar about maintaining uninterrupted ksiva-to-nesina, or is it about defining the very din of sefer itself?
This shiur analyzes Gittin 4a, where the Gemara (גמרא) addresses the Mishna's requirement that both the ksiva (writing) and chasima (signing) of a get must be done b'talush (detached from the ground). The Gemara attempts to determine which Tanna holds this position—whether Rav Eliezer, who requires ksiva b'talush based on the pasuk's use of "sefer," or Rav Meir, who permits writing while attached if later detached, or Rav Yehuda, who requires both ksiva and chasima to be b'talush. Rav Ashi suggests that the Mishna follows Rav Yehuda, who holds that you need both ksiva v'chasima b'talush. The shiur examines why we need Rav Ashi's approach rather than simply following Rav Eliezer. The answer involves understanding that according to Rav Eliezer, only ksiva must be b'talush (based on the din of sefer), but chasima might be acceptable even when mechubar. Rav Yehuda teaches that chasima must also be b'talush, which introduces a new dimension to the din of sefer.
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 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.
