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.
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.
