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.
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.
