No community start suggestion yet.
Must a husband orally declare "this is your get" when handing his wife a divorce document, or is physical delivery enough? The shiur analyzes Rambam (רמב"ם)'s two-part formulation: one halacha (הלכה) requires kinyan (acquisition through reshus), another requires amira (verbal declaration). The Mishna's cases—misleading her, partial mesira, and sleeping—test whether she qualifies as a bas gerushin at the moment of delivery.
This shiur examines the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s treatment of get delivery in Hilchos Gerushin, Perek 5, Halacha (הלכה) 8, focusing on two separate halachos that govern when a get is valid. The first halacha concerns kinyan—whether the wife acquires the get through being kona b'chatzera (acquisition via one's domain) when the husband is not makpid (particular) about the exact location. The second halacha addresses reshus—whether a certain space, such as her bed (mitah), is considered her own domain such that placing the get there constitutes valid delivery (nasan b'yada). The Rambam distinguishes between keili shelo kana (acquiring through a vessel that doesn't belong to her but is in the husband's domain) and reshus shelo kana (a domain that doesn't belong to her but is considered hers for purposes of get). The shiur argues these are fundamentally different dinim: keili shelo is a din in hilchos kinyanim (laws of acquisition), while mitah is a din that certain spaces are halachically considered "her hand" (yada) even without kinyan. This distinction matters for other areas of halacha—what applies in one context (such as acquiring peiros through a basket in Bava Metzia) may not apply in another.
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 78a
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.
