A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When two gittin get mixed up, does Rabbi Elazar require eidei mesira specifically, or do eidei chasima suffice? The shiur analyzes Tosfos's challenge to the Rif and Rambam (רמב"ם), who hold eidei chasima can serve as eidei mesira. A fundamental distinction emerges: according to Rabbi Meir, eidei chasima alone validate the get; according to Rabbi Elazar, the eidei chasima function as eidei mesira—requiring actual knowledge of the proper delivery.
This shiur on Gittin 4a focuses on the fundamental machlokes between the Rishonim regarding the role of eidei chasima (witnesses who sign the get) versus eidei mesira (witnesses to the delivery of the get). The Gemara (גמרא) discusses a case where two gittin became mixed up and must both be given to both women. The Gemara says this works according to Rabbi Meir but not according to Rabbi Elazar. Tosfos raises a fundamental question: if Rabbi Elazar holds "af eidei mesira karsi" (also eidei mesira are essential), why can't we simply remove the problematic eidei mesira and rely on the eidei chasima instead? Tosfos concludes that according to Rabbi Elazar, eidei chasima are completely inadequate, and only eidei mesira work—leading Tosfos to understand "eidei mesira karsi" as meaning "davka eidei mesira" (specifically and only eidei mesira).
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.
