A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can a rabbinic kinyan create a valid Torah (תורה)-level divorce or marriage? The Ramban (רמב"ן) and Ran offer starkly different models—one relying on retroactive annulment, the other on rabbinic land transfer. The shiur develops a fundamental chakira: ownership can mean either enforceable legal rights (sufficient for get and kiddushin) or intrinsic metaphysical connection (required only for special mitzvos like lulav).
This shiur analyzes Gittin 78a and the Mishna's ruling that dalet amos (four cubits) constitutes a valid kinyan for both get (divorce) and kiddushin (marriage). The central problem: dalet amos is only a kinyan derabanan (rabbinic acquisition), yet get and kiddushin seemingly require Torah (תורה)-level validity. How can a rabbinic kinyan effectuate Torah-level consequences? The Ramban (רמב"ן) explains that when a woman receives a get through dalet amos, the sages retroactively annul the original marriage through the principle of "kol hamakadesh adas derabanan makadesh"—anyone who sanctifies does so subject to rabbinic conditions. Thus she was never married on a Torah level. This creates difficulties: if she was never truly married, then discovering she committed adultery during the marriage should carry no consequences, and a kohen who marries her should not receive lashes for marrying a divorcée.
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.
