No community start suggestion yet.
How much sirtut (line ruling) is needed for different holy writings? The shiur develops a fundamental chakira distinguishing between sirtut required by the object itself (sefer Torah (תורה), mezuzah, tefillin) and sirtut required for writing Torah text, resolving contradictions in the Rambam (רמב"ם), Rama, and Tosfos regarding whether sirtut is needed on every line or only at the top.
This shiur explores the halachos of sirtut—the line ruling required when writing holy texts—analyzing apparent contradictions in the Rambam (רמב"ם), Rama, and Tosfos. The initial problem arises from the Rama's two seemingly conflicting rulings: in Hilchos Tefillin the Rama permits only a top line per Rabbeinu Tam, while in Hilchos Sefer Torah (תורה) he requires sirtut on all four sides. Similarly, Tosfos states that tefillin need only a line on top, yet later cites Mesechta Sofrim requiring sirtut on all four sides. The Rambam presents multiple difficulties. In Perek Alef of Hilchos Sefer Torah he rules that a sefer Torah cannot be written without sirtut, yet only in Perek Zayin does he specify that three words may be written without sirtut but not four. Additionally, in Hilchos Yibum V'Chalitzah the Rambam permits writing only two words without sirtut, contradicting his three-word allowance elsewhere. The Kesef Mishneh struggles to reconcile these positions.
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 6b
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.
