No community start suggestion yet.
How does revoking a get (divorce document) work? The shiur analyzes the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s distinctive position that bitul ha-get is not an act destroying a document in the present, but rather a retraction of one's original will (ratzon) to divorce. This reading resolves fundamental tensions in the Gemara (גמרא) and explains the difference between revoking the agent's agency (bitul ha-shlichut) versus revoking the get itself.
This shiur presents an in-depth analysis of Gittin 32b, focusing on the conceptual nature of bitul ha-get (revoking a divorce document) according to the Rambam (רמב"ם). The discussion begins with the Gemara (גמרא)'s treatment of language used in revoking gifts (matana) versus divorce documents, establishing that certain verbal formulations work for one but not the other. The central question explored is the fundamental machloket (dispute) between Rashi (רש"י) and the Rambam regarding what bitul ha-get means conceptually. According to Rashi, when one revokes a get, one is performing an act in the future—destroying or invalidating the document itself (lo asi dibur mevatel ma'aseh—speech cannot undo a physical deed). The Gemara's discussion of whether one can be chozer (retract) reflects this understanding that some action is being done to the document.
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 32b
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.
