No community start suggestion yet.
How can a get thrown within the husband's dalet amos invalidate the divorce when he has no intention to acquire it himself? The shiur develops a fundamental chakira: dalet amos creates two separate dinim—one establishes "place" (makom) independent of kinyan, the other creates acquisition rights. A get fails when thrown in the husband's "place" even if the wife acquires it through kinyan chatzeiros.
This Gemara (גמרא) shiur on Gittin 78a analyzes the complex sugia of dalet amos in the context of divorce law, addressing fundamental questions about the nature of dalet amos and its relationship to kinyan. The shiur begins by examining the Gemara's discussion of when a get (divorce document) is considered validly given based on the dalet amos (four-cubit zone) of the husband and wife. The central question driving the analysis is: How can the husband's dalet amos invalidate a get when he clearly has no interest in acquiring it? The husband is trying to divorce his wife—he has no shaychus (connection) to being koneh (acquiring) the get. This fundamental difficulty runs through multiple scenarios discussed in the Gemara, including cases of karov v'lo (close but not within), chatzos shel shnayim (shared space), and efshar l'tzamtzem (whether two people can occupy a place simultaneously).
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.
