A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What makes a valid act of giving when the husband throws a get upward to his wife standing on a roof? The shiur develops Rashi (רש"י)'s fundamental distinction: derech aliyah vs. derech yeridah is not about kinyan chatzer mechanics but about the definition of ma'aseh nesinah—what constitutes an authentic act of "giving" in gittin.
This shiur analyzes Gittin 79a, focusing on the Mishna's case of a husband throwing a get to his wife who stands on a roof. The central question is whether the get must travel derech yeridah (downward) to be valid, or whether derech aliyah (upward) also suffices. Rav Nachman quoting Rav Bar Avua teaches that the Mishna discusses only derech yeridah—throwing the get upward toward the wife is insufficient until it begins descending toward her chatzer. The shiur contrasts two fundamental approaches. Tosafos (תוספות) understands the requirement of derech yeridah as a technical rule of kinyan chatzer: a chatzer can only acquire an object that is traveling downward, not upward. According to this reading, the distinction is about the mechanics of how a courtyard effects acquisition. Tosafos asks how this squares with the Gemara (גמרא) in Bava Metzia about aver sofah lo noach, where throwing through another's domain still creates a valid kinyan. Tosafos answers that kinyan chatzer simply does not function with upward motion.
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 79a
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.
When an animal damages crops, the Torah prescribes a unique payment formula based on multiplying the damaged area by sixty. Does this formula redefine the actual loss, or does it merely create a payment mechanism that still acknowledges the full damage sustained? The Gemara explores whether someone who ate in doubt should pay the higher-quality amount, examining how the principle of motzi me-chaveiro alav haraya applies when payments fall within the range of actual loss.
What makes testimony valid when different witnesses testify to different parts of the same event? The Gemara debates whether the principle of "davar v'lo chatzi davar" (complete testimony, not partial) disqualifies witnesses who testify separately to theft and slaughter. Rashi's approach reveals that the issue is not merely combining elements, but whether each witness's statement is independently meaningful.
Why is a ganav who sells a stolen animal on Shabbos exempt from the fourfold/fivefold payment? The shiur analyzes whether this exemption stems from kam lei b'derabbah or from the absence of a valid mechira. The Rashba's principle that matana resembles mechira when it is "nishtarish b'chet" is explored, along with the Rambam's position on hekdesh and the distinction between giving to bedek habayis versus mizbe'ach.
When a ganav shechts a stolen animal l'avodah zarah, why isn't he patur from payment since it's already isur hana'ah? The shiur explores the fundamental machloket Rashi-Tosafot on whether the isur derives from the act of shechita or from the din shechita itself. The Gemara's application of davar garem be'mamon ke'mamon domi extends the analysis to when borrowed animals become niskal.
