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.
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.
