A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
How can a husband be masalek from rights he doesn't yet have—like peiros or yerusha—when there's nothing currently to give up? The shiur develops the distinction between siluk (giving up a right) and tanai (restructuring the deal): bei od arusa works because it structures the marriage itself to exclude those rights, not because it retroactively transfers something that doesn't exist.
This shiur provides a comprehensive analysis of Gittin 77b, focusing on the fundamental question of how a person can relinquish rights to property or benefits that do not yet exist—a davar she'lo ba l'olam. The central sugya revolves around a husband's ability to be masalek (remove himself) from achilus peiros (eating the fruits) of his wife's property, and the parallel case of Rav Kahana regarding yerusha (inheritance). The Gemara (גמרא) raises a fundamental difficulty: "mashakanti ish akanti baila"—if something is already acquired to the husband (like peiros), how can mere verbal relinquishment (siluk) work without a formal transfer (lashon matana)? The Gemara's answer is "ba'oi darusa"—it works when done while still betrothed, before the rights actually vest. But this creates its own problem: how can one give up something one doesn't yet have? You cannot change your mind about something that doesn't exist; there's no real smichus hada'as (firm resolution) on a davar she'lo ba l'olam.
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.
