A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
How close must a woman stand to her chatzer for her get to be acquired there? The shiur analyzes the machlokes between Rav Ashi and Ula regarding proximity (besoch vs. betzad), and develops the fundamental dispute between Rashi (רש"י)/Tosfos and the Rambam (רמב"ם) over whether this is a din in kinyan chatzer or a din in yad—with major nafka minos regarding lavud, partial ownership, and whether the husband must be mashil the entire chatzer or just the makom where the get lands.
This shiur analyzes Gemara (גמרא) Gittin 77b, focusing on the laws governing when a woman can acquire her get (bill of divorce) through her chatzer (courtyard). The central question is whether the woman must physically stand within (besoch) her chatzer or merely adjacent to (betzad) it. The Gemara presents a dispute between Rav Ashi, who requires that she be "besoch beisah"—within her property—and Ula, who holds that being "betzad beis" or "betzad chatzer"—alongside her property—is sufficient. Rabbi Zweig examines the textual difficulty: the Mishna uses the language "besoch beiso," which seems to support Rav Ashi's position, yet Ula appears to contradict this. The Gemara resolves this by distinguishing between two rationales for the requirement. According to one approach, the chatzer works through the principle of "yad" (her hand), requiring proximity (samuch). According to the other approach, chatzer functions through "shlichus" (agency), where even distance (mishtameres) suffices as long as she is watching over it.
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 77b
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.
