No community start suggestion yet.
Does a woman need to own her get, or does it merely need to be placed in her hand? The shiur develops three major shitos: Rashi (רש"י) holds chatzer works al ko'ach kinyan (even balkoach she acquires the get); the Tur/Mordechai hold chatzer is an extended hand requiring only nesinah without kinyan; and the Rambam (רמב"ם) appears to follow the second approach, transforming the get achmei agav karka question.
This shiur presents a fundamental machloket in the nature of divorce law, centering on Gittin 77a and the principle of chatzer ki'yadah. The core question is whether a woman must actually own (be koneh) the get for the divorce to take effect, or whether it is sufficient for the get to be placed in her domain (nesinah) without formal acquisition. Rabbi Zweig begins by analyzing Rashi (רש"י)'s position, both in Gittin and in Bava Metzia 11b. Rashi states in Bava Metzia that "yada kanya ma'agav get al kochach" - the hand acquires the get even against her will. This indicates that according to Rashi, receiving a get in one's hand is fundamentally an act of kinyan (acquisition). Therefore, when the Gemara (גמרא) says chatzer works like yad, it means chatzer also creates a kinyan in the get. Even balkoach (against her will), she becomes the owner of the get through chatzer, just as she becomes owner through her physical hand. This answers the question about issur hana'ah (an item forbidden in benefit): the Torah (תורה) made the get transferable balkoach as a special mechanism of kinyan, not because kinyan is unnecessary. Both yad and chatzer require kinyan according to Rashi.
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 77a
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.
