A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
How many words can be written without sirtut (guiding lines)? The Gemara (גמרא) presents contradictory statements—Rav Yitzchok says three, the Braisa says four. The shiur develops the concept of "nikra hedyot" (acting as a commoner): beautifying mitzvos must reflect what Hashem (ה׳) considers beautiful, not what we personally prefer—the deeper meaning of zeh keli v'anveihu.
The Gemara (גמרא) in Gittin discusses the laws of sirtut (ruled lines used as guides when writing holy texts). The core issue is how many words one may write without sirtut. The Gemara presents two seemingly contradictory sources: Rav Yitzchok says one may write two words without sirtut, but three words require sirtut; a Braisa states one may write three words without sirtut, but four words require sirtut. The Gemara resolves the contradiction by suggesting that Abaye states Rav Yitzchok never heard the tradition (gabra rabbah lo mishme'ei lah)—he simply wasn't aware of the other ruling. Rashi (רש"י) and Tosfos present different approaches to understanding the context. Rashi interprets the case as discussing people who remained in Eretz Yisrael longer than necessary, neglecting their wives and the mitzvah (מצוה) of pru u'rvu (procreation). Rashi suggests they treated their wives lightly (sheneko beinahem yilod u'vilod), making marriage merely for physical gratification rather than building a family—turning the relationship into something resembling that with a zona (harlot). Tosfos disagrees, understanding the case as involving talmidei chachamim who went to learn Torah (תורה) in Eretz Yisrael but stayed away from their families for extended periods, creating financial and familial hardship.
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 65b
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.
