No community start suggestion yet.
Does a get (divorce document) require witnesses to sign lishmah (with specific intent), or only the writing itself? The Gemara (גמרא) asks whether Rav Elazar, who holds eidei mesira karsi (witnesses of delivery validate the get), still requires chasimah lishmah. The shiur analyzes the Ramban (רמב"ן)-Ridvaz dispute: whether witness signatures create the "shtar" status requiring lishmah, or merely testify to the divorce.
This shiur examines Gittin 3b, focusing on a fundamental question in the laws of divorce: when witnesses sign a get, must they do so lishmah (with specific intent for that particular divorce), or is it sufficient that only the writing itself be done lishmah? The Gemara (גמרא) presents a difficulty: according to Rav Elazar who holds eidei mesira karsi (that witnesses who observe the delivery validate the get), what is the requirement for witnesses who sign the document itself? The shiur analyzes the core sugya where the Gemara questions whether according to Rav Elazar you need ksiva (writing) lishmah or chasima (signing) lishmah. The basic tension is this: if Rav Elazar holds that witnesses of delivery are what validate the get, then when there are also witnesses who sign the document, what role do their signatures play? Must they sign lishmah?
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.
