A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does a shliach bringing a get from outside Eretz Yisrael need to declare "befanai nechtav u'nechtam"? The shiur analyzes a fundamental dispute between the Rambam (רמב"ם) and Raavad about whether shtaros (documents) are valid testimony mide'orayta or only miderabanan, and how this affects when befanai nechtav serves as valid kiyum (validation) of the get—whether only during the divorce process itself or even afterwards.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of Gittin 2a, focusing on the requirement of "befanai nechtav u'nechtam" (declaring "it was written and signed before me") when a shliach delivers a get from chutz la'aretz (outside the Land of Israel). Rabbi Zweig begins by examining Rashi (רש"י)'s explanation that this declaration is not required when the woman herself receives the get directly from her husband, since she is already divorced at that moment and there is no need for this statement. This raises the question: what exactly is the purpose of befanai nechtav u'nechtam? The Ran offers one explanation: when the husband appoints a shliach holachah (agent to deliver), there remains a possibility that the husband might later contest (me'areir) the validity of the get. However, when the woman receives the get directly or through a shliach kabbalah (agent to receive), the divorce is complete and there is no concern about later contestation. Rashi, however, appears to offer a different understanding—that once the woman is divorced, there is simply no procedural reason to make this declaration at all, regardless of concerns about contestation.
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 2a
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.
