A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What happens when a shliach bringing a get from overseas cannot say "befanai nichtav, befanai nechtam"? The shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא)'s case of nischarish (became deaf-mute) versus nishtateik (became mute), revealing three distinct halachos: when the meshaleach must write a new get, when the shliach must re-deliver, and when yiskayim bechoisvo suffices without further action.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental Gemara (גמרא) in Gittin regarding the requirement for a shliach bringing a get from overseas to declare "befanai nichtav, befanai nechtam" (in my presence it was written and signed). The Mishna teaches that if the shliach is unable to say this, the get is validated through yiskayim bechoisvo—witnesses testifying to the signatures. The Gemara asks why we need Rav Yosef's case when the Mishna itself teaches yiskayim bechoisvo, and answers that the Mishna refers specifically to ein yacho l'omeir (he is unable to say). The Marsha raises Tosafos (תוספות)'s question: Why doesn't the Mishna use the case of an ilem (mute person)? If the case were an ilem, everything would work smoothly—he could serve as a valid shliach, and he could write down the testimony of lishmo in writing, satisfying both requirements. The Gemara would have no need for the complex proof from Ravina and Rav. Tosafos answers that the expression "v'lo yomar" (and he did not say) wouldn't fit an ilem, leading to the conclusion that the case must be a cheireish (deaf-mute).
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 (daf and side discussed throughout)
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.
