No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the husband need to verbally state "harei at mutteres" when divorcing his wife? The shiur analyzes different approaches from Rishonim—whether it's to ensure the husband knows what he's doing (Ba'al HaMaor), part of the act of sending her away (Ramban (רמב"ן)), or so the wife understands the finality of the divorce (Tosafot). The discussion examines contradictions between different sugyos and explores whether the verbal declaration can be made to an agent.
This shiur presents a detailed analysis of the Mishna on Gittin 78a, which discusses three cases where a get (divorce document) is invalid until the husband says "harei at mutteres" (you are hereby permitted to remarry). The Mishna's structure raises questions about why all three cases are necessary and what each teaches. The shiur identifies two distinct halachos in the Mishna: (1) the get is not valid without the proper declaration, and (2) it can be fixed retroactively by saying "harei zeh gitach" or "harei at mutteres." The progression of the three cases—where he misleads her about what the document is, where she finds it without knowing what it is, and where he places it in her hand while she's sleeping—represents different levels of chiddush for each halacha (הלכה). The order makes sense when viewed from the perspective of which case is a bigger chiddush regarding the invalidity versus which is a bigger chiddush regarding the ability to fix it retroactively.
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.
