There was a technical difficulty with the recorder today and this shiur was lost. Here are typed notes from today in shiur. If there are any questions, please email [email protected].

10/28/08
The ר"ן in the very beginning of קידושין says that this doesn’t knock out the בעל העיטור in that שטר and כסף are different when it comes to לשמה. By שטר, its understandable that it must be written לשמה since the written words are the עיקר of the קנין. By כסף though, the קנין isn't dependant on the shape the coin is minted into, but rather it goes by the value of the weight of the metal. The ר"ן therefore says that it makes sense that the minting doesn’t need to be done לשמה, even if ויצאה והיתה applies לשמה to all methods of קידושין, as the בעל העיטור says. Most ראשונים disagree with the בעל העיטור though. They do make the connection by שטר קידושין though and require it to be written לשמה.
“Comes the רשב"א in a תשובה with an unbelievable חידוש.” The רשב"א says that a שטר קידושין that’s מחובר will be good, despite the fact that a גט מחובר is פסול. To say that ויצאה והיתה doesn’t apply to שטר קידושין is very big חידוש since the whole concept of שטר קידושין is learned from this היקש. “So in order to understand the רשב"א, we need to go back to the basics.” You can't write a גט that’s מחובר לקרקע. The גמרא on גיטין 21b says וכתב ונתן לה- מי שאינו מחוסר אלא כתיבה ונתינה יצא זה שמחוסר כתיבה קציצה ונתינה. This גזירת הכתוב only teaches that you can't write the גט on something that it attached and then you cut it and give it. What if someone were to write a גט on a tree and then give the tree without chopping it? The משנה says its no good because its מחובר but the גמרא never explains why this is no good. The ירושלמי says that this is no good because the גט must be דומיה דספר, in that it must be תלוש. The ירושלמי has one דין of מחוסר קציצה and even if you don’t cut it, its no good because its not דומיה דספר. This is difficult because it is רבי יוסי הגלילי on 21b who reads the word ספר as meaning a book and therefore says that a גט must be written on something that is bookish, i.e. not on something alive or on food. The חכמים disagree and say that sefer means לספירת דברים הוא דאתא and that you can write the גט on anything. This ירושלמי is therefore difficult because דומיה דספר fits with רבי יוסי הגלילי in that its saying that מחובר is another thing that’s unlike ספר. According to the חכמים though, why should מחובר not be good? This led many ראשונים to not accept this ירושלמי.
What then is the מקור for מחובר not being good? The רשב"א says that its because it’s a חסרון in the דין of נתינת הגט.
A גט requires proper creation of the חפצא and it needs to be handed over correctly. If the מקור of אין כותבין למחובר is rooted in ספר like רבי יוסי הגלילי then it’s a דין in the כתיבת הגט. If its learned like the רשב"א that it’s a חסרון in the נתינה, then it has nothing to do with the creation of the חפצא of the גט.
To determine which one it is we can look at a case with an עציץ נקוב (flower pot), which is considered קרקע and it can be given over. If it’s a דין in ספר that it can't be מחובר then one would not be able to write a גט on a plant in a flower pot since this is still considered מחובר. If it’s a חסרון in נתינה then this flower גט should be fine. The רשב"א refers to the גמרא in גיטין that says that this גט written on the flower pot is no good מדרבנן as a גזירה that you may come to cut off the leaf the גט was written on and thereby have a problem of מחוסר קציצה. The רשב"א says that since you theoretically could have given the flower pot, we see that the issue with something מחובר is because it lacks נתינה. We therefore don’t go like the ירושלמי and רבי יוסי הגלילי. The רשב"א then says that the היקש of ויצאה והיתה teaches that the שטר קידושין must be written לשמה, just like גט. This היקש only teaches דינים relating to the creation of the חפצא of the גט and only those types of דינים carry over to קידושין. Details relating to the נתינת הגט do not transfer over to קידושין though. The רשב"א therefore says that שטר קידושין can be מחובר since it is a דין in the נתינת הגט and therefore ויצאה והיתה doesn’t apply to it.
The רשב"א in יבמות says that כתיבת הבעל doesn’t apply by קידושין and the ריטב"א says it does. רבי מאיר says that עידי חתימה כרתי. יש לחקור to needing two עדים on the גט. Is this requirement emanating from the חפצא of the גט in that עדים signing defines a גט. Or is it that the עדים need to be present בשעת נתינת הגט as signatures on the paper and the עדים are a דין in the מסירת הגט and nothing to do with the חפצא of the גט.
The רשב"א says that the need for עדים according to רבי מאיר is rooted in נתינת הגט and therefore this isn't compared to קידושין, and there is no concept of כתיבת הבעל by שטר קידושין. The רשב"א is therefore לשיטתו with his תשובות. Since it has nothing to do with the creation of the גט, its not subject to the היקש and therefore it’s a different דין by גיטין than it is by קידושין.
According to the ריטב"א, who carries the דין of כתיבת הבעל over to קידושין, either the היקש covers all aspects of קידושין, not just חפצאs and therefore this דין carries over too. Or it could be that the requirement of עדים is rooted within כתיבת הגט and is needed for the חפצא הגט and therefore its subject to the היקש.