No community start suggestion yet.
How does a woman acquire a get that cannot be handed to her directly? Rashi (רש"י) learns kinyan agav (a Rabbinic acquisition), while the Ran learns kinyan chatzer (a Torah (תורה)-level acquisition). The shiur explores why Rashi doesn't use the simpler Torah kinyan, developing the principle that kinyan chatzer only works when you first own the property and then the object arrives—not when both come simultaneously.
This shiur analyzes Gittin 77b, focusing on the case of a shechiv meira (dangerously ill person) who gives a get. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses a procedure where the woman should close and open the door of the room where the get is located, thereby acquiring the get through acquisition of the property. Rashi (רש"י) explains this as kinyan agav—acquiring movable property (the get) together with real estate. However, Rashi's position raises a fundamental question: why doesn't Rashi explain this as kinyan chatzer, a Torah (תורה)-level acquisition through one's courtyard? Kinyan chatzer would seem simpler and more straightforward, especially since the Gemara explicitly mentions the "chatzer where the get is located."
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.
