No community start suggestion yet.
When does the husband's verbal declaration ("hagitach") need to happen—before, during, or after physically handing the get? The Gemara (גמרא)'s cases of finding the get behind him or giving it while she sleeps force the question: is amira part of the maaseh nesina itself, or a separate requirement for chalus haget? Rashi (רש"י), Tosafos (תוספות), the Baal HaMaor, and the Rambam (רמב"ם) each offer distinct readings of whether the original nesina counts or a new nesina is created by the words.
This shiur on Gittin 78a examines the role of amira—the husband's verbal declaration to the wife—in the process of giving a get. The Mishna presents two cases where the get is delivered without proper amira: (1) when the wife finds the get behind her husband (starikov matsaso meachorov), and (2) when he places it in her hand while she is asleep (nasan lah v'hi yeshena). In both cases, Rebbe holds that if the husband later says "harei hu gitach," it becomes a valid get without needing to physically retake and re-give the document. The Gemara (גמרא)'s analysis reveals fundamental questions about the structure of gittin. Is the verbal declaration part of the maaseh nesina (the act of giving), or is it a separate requirement? If it's part of nesina, how can saying "hagitach" after she already received the document create a valid divorce? The Rishonim offer radically different answers.
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.
