No community start suggestion yet.
How does a get achieve valid delivery when thrown through airspace onto a roof? The shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא)'s requirement of "sof olanuach" (destined to come to rest) and "mintar" (protected space), examining Rashi (רש"י)'s approach that airspace itself can qualify as a valid kinyan chatzer when it serves as the entryway to the ground, independent of whether the get will actually reach there.
This shiur provides an intensive analysis of Gittin 78b-79a, focusing on the complex laws governing get delivery when the document is thrown through airspace. The central question is how to understand the twin requirements of "sof olanuach" (destined to come to rest) and "mintar" (protected space) in establishing a valid kinyan for the get. The Gemara (גמרא) begins with a Mishna discussing a case where a get is thrown onto a roof (gag). The question arises: when exactly is the woman divorced? Rashi (רש"י) explains that according to Rav Nachman bar Rav Avu, the get must be traveling downward (derech yerida) to constitute a valid delivery. If thrown upward (derech aliya), even if walls extend upward, it lacks the character of nesina (giving) and therefore doesn't create a divorce until it begins descending.
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 78b-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.
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.
