A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When can a woman's keli (vessel) in her husband's domain effect kinyan for a get? The Gemara (גמרא) presents competing approaches: one requires actual transfer of the makom (place), another holds that legitimate possession suffices even without being makpid. The shiur explores whether keli shel lokeach reshus moecher works through kinyan chatzer or kinyan possession, with major ramifications for shomrim and gittin.
This shiur analyzes Gittin 77b's discussion of when a keli (vessel) belonging to the lokeach (purchaser) in the reshus (domain) of the moecher (seller) can effect kinyan. The Gemara (גמרא) brings a case where a husband throws a get into his wife's bed. According to Rav, if the bed is in his domain, she is not divorced. Rav Elazar disagrees: her bed, even in his domain, is considered keli shel lokeach bereshus moecher, and she is divorced. The Gemara attempts to prove that keli shel lokeach reshus moecher can effect kinyan. Rashi (רש"י) explains that when the bed is ten tefachim high (gavoa asar), it constitutes a reshus befnei atzmo—an independent domain. The airspace above the bed is not considered part of the husband's reshus. However, the Gemara challenges this with "ikam makam kari lo kafti"—if the legs of the bed touch the ground below ten tefachim, does it lose its status as an independent reshus?
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.
