No community start suggestion yet.
Why can a husband place a get in the wife's chatzer when mah shekanah ishah kanah ba'alah—doesn't the husband's ownership of usufruct (peiros) mean the get never left his domain? The shiur analyzes two approaches: Rashi (רש"י) holds chatzer requires kinyan (constructive ownership), while Tosafos (תוספות) holds chatzer works as an extension of yad. The Gemara (גמרא)'s solutions—either the husband writes away his nichsei melug rights when she's an arusah, or gittin v'shichronin b'yad echad—reveal fundamental disagreements about whether get requires kinyan or merely nesinah.
The shiur opens with an analysis of the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s formulation in Hilchos Gerushin (Perek 5, Halacha (הלכה) 1), which states that a get is effective when it reaches the woman's hand, bosom (cheik), or chatzer. The Rambam does not explicitly mention the requirement of kasav lah (writing away nichsei melug rights) or gittin v'shichronin b'yad echad, raising questions about how the Gemara (גמרא)'s resolutions are incorporated into practical halacha. This omission is particularly striking because in Hilchos Avadim, the Rambam explicitly invokes gittin v'shichronin b'yad echad regarding an eved's shtar shichrur, yet here he remains silent on both solutions. The Gemara on 77b presents the fundamental problem: mah shekanah ishah kanah ba'alah—whatever a wife acquires, her husband acquires (specifically, the usufruct rights in her nichsei melug property). Rashi (רש"י) interprets this principle to mean that when a get is placed in the wife's chatzer, it never leaves the husband's reshus (domain), since he owns the peiros (fruit/usufruct) of the chatzer. Therefore, the kinyan cannot take effect—she cannot acquire the get through her chatzer because the husband retains a property interest. Tosafos (תוספות), however, offers a different understanding: the husband's kinyan peiros creates such a strong property right that it's as if he owns the chatzer itself (ki ilu kanah guf hachatzer). According to Tosafos, the problem is not merely that the get didn't leave his reshus, but that the chatzer functionally belongs to him, making it his "hand" rather than hers.
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.
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.
