No community start suggestion yet.
The Gemara (גמרא) defines Eretz Yisrael boundaries—north of Akko and south of Ashkelon are chutz la'aretz. But if Ashkelon appears in Tanach as conquered Eretz Yisrael, why does the Mishna treat it as outside? Rabbeinu Tam distinguishes territorial Eretz Yisrael (which Ashkelon and Akko retain eternally through chazakah of olei Bavel) from kedushas ha'aretz (kedushah shniyah via kedushas peh, which these border cities lack). The shiur traces this chakira through Tosfos, Rif, Rambam (רמב"ם), and the Ri.
The shiur opens with the Mishna in Gittin 2a which delineates the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael for the halacha (הלכה) of lafnei pnai lafnei pnai: from Akko north is chutz la'aretz, from Ashkelon south is chutz la'aretz, and from Rekem east is chutz la'aretz. Tosfos immediately challenges this: pesukim in Sefer Yehoshua and Sefer Shoftim explicitly state that Ashkelon was conquered by Yehoshua and was part of Eretz Yisrael. How can the Mishna classify it as chutz la'aretz? Rabbeinu Tam answers that while Ashkelon indeed had the kedusha rishonah of olei Mitzrayim, that kedushah was kitzu leshayta—it was nullified when Klal Yisrael went into galus. When the olei Bavel returned in the time of Ezra, they did not reconquer Ashkelon, so it never received kedushah shniyah. Ashkelon therefore remains chutz la'aretz from the standpoint of kedushah, even though it is geographically within the biblical boundaries. The shiur notes that Tosfos then adds a curious phrase: "v'lach ein talmidei chachamim metzuim sham, bein batei dinim k'vuim sham." What does the absence of talmidei chachamim and batei din have to do with the question? If Tosfos' question was simply whether Ashkelon is Eretz Yisrael based on the pasuk, then the answer should rest on kedushah alone—not on sociological facts about scholars and courts.
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 2a
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.
