No community start suggestion yet.
Can a husband divorce his wife without explicitly saying so? The Gemara (גמרא) explores when physical delivery alone suffices for divorce versus kiddushin, developing a fundamental distinction: by divorce, the woman is merely the object of the action (no da'as isha required), whereas kiddushin requires her consent as a party. The shiur also analyzes whether dalet amos grants Torah (תורה)-level or rabbinic ownership in divorce and kiddushin contexts.
This shiur analyzes Gittin 78a's discussion of divorce without an explicit declaration (amira), contrasting the requirements for gittin versus kiddushin. Rabbi Zweig opens by examining the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position in Hilchos Gerushin that no amira is needed for divorce when the get is given b'toras gerushin (in the context of divorce). The critical question is how we know it's being done "b'toras gerushin" without explicit words. The Rambam's treatment in different halachos reveals a fundamental distinction. In Hilchos Ishus (kiddushin), the Rambam requires that the words be mashma kiddushin—clearly indicative of marriage intent. In Hilchos Gerushin, however, words with dual meanings (mashma'os) are valid midoraisa, though pasul only miderabbanan. This suggests that kiddushin requires yedayim mochichos (clear indication), while gittin requires only yedayim (some indication), even if not entirely unambiguous.
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
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.
