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.
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.
