A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When does a city qualify as close enough to Eretz Yisrael to exempt divorce witnesses from declaring "befanai nechta"? The Gemara (גמרא) debates whether smuchos (proximity), muvlaos (surrounded geography), or both are required. The shiur explores whether the machlokes hinges on what we know about the witnesses' knowledge of lishmah, or on defining what constitutes "one place" versus separate locations subject to gezeiras chachamim.
This shiur on Gittin 4a analyzes a fundamental dispute regarding cities that border Eretz Yisrael and whether witnesses signing a get in such locations must declare "befanai nechta, befanai nechta" (in my presence it was written and signed). The Mishna presents a three-way dispute: the Tanna Kama, Rabban Gamaliel, and Rabbi Eliezer each offer different criteria for when witnesses are exempt from this declaration. The Gemara (גמרא) initially proposes that the machlokes concerns whether the issue is lishmah (proper intent in writing the get) or eidim metzuyim lekaimo (availability of witnesses to validate the get). According to Rava, the dispute centers on whether witnesses in these border cities know the requirement of lishmah—if they do, no declaration is needed; if they don't, it is required. The Tanna Kama holds that smuchos (proximity) alone suffices to establish that witnesses know lishmah. Rabban Gamaliel requires muvlaos (being geographically surrounded within Eretz Yisrael's borders) because mere proximity doesn't guarantee sufficient contact. Rabbi Eliezer goes further, requiring the declaration even in muvlaos areas—shelo techalek bemedinah umedinah mesayem (to avoid distinctions between different territories).
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.
