No community start suggestion yet.
Does da'as amos create ownership mid'oraisa or only mid'rabbanan? The shiur analyzes a fundamental debate between the Ran and Ramban (רמב"ן). While the Ran argues da'as amos works like chatzer (mid'oraisa), the Ramban holds it's kinyan d'rabbanan that permits remarriage via afkinhu rabbanan kidushin. The shiur proposes several novel approaches to resolve how a kinyan d'rabbanan could create kedushin d'oraisa.
This shiur presents a detailed analysis of Gittin 78a-b, focusing on a fundamental question: Is da'as amos (the kinyan of one's four amos in public domain) a kinyan d'rabbanan or d'oraisa, and how does this affect gittin and kiddushin? Rabbi Zweig begins by examining Tosafos (תוספות)'s difficulty reconciling two seemingly contradictory passages in the Gemara (גמרא). Rav Ashi (in another passage) holds that da'as amos does not work in reshus harabim, only in simta or the side of reshus harabim, yet our Mishna clearly states that throwing a get in reshus harabim effects a divorce through da'as amos. Tosafos offers two approaches: either the case must be where she can guard the get (yechola lishmoer), or the Gemara doesn't actually mean reshus harabim but rather a simta adjacent to reshus harabim. The Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position creates additional difficulties - he rules like Rav Ashi that da'as amos doesn't work in reshus harabim, yet also rules that throwing a get in reshus harabim is valid. This apparent contradiction requires explanation.
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-b
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.
