A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What determines whether conquered land has the sanctity of Eretz Yisrael? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction between ownership (baalut) of land and governmental authority (shlicha) over it. Syria illustrates the tension: even as kibbush yachid it may require terumot u'maasrot (shlicha), yet remain chutz la'aretz for other dinim (no ownership by the nation).
This shiur analyzes Masechta Gittin 2a and develops a fundamental framework for understanding when conquered territory receives the halachic status of Eretz Yisrael. The discussion centers on the Mishna's requirement to say "b'fanai nichtav u'b'fanai nechtam" for gittin from certain locations including Ashkelon, Rekem, Chager, and Akko. Rabbi Zweig begins by presenting Rabbeinu Tam's approach to the Mishna, which distinguishes between different parts of these cities. According to Rabbeinu Tam, Ashkelon was not recaptured by Olei Bavel; Rekem and Chager mentioned in the Mishna refer to cities outside Eretz Yisrael (not the cities with those names inside Eretz Yisrael); and Akko is divided into northern and southern sections, with only the southern portion having the status of Eretz Yisrael.
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 2a
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.
