A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What makes land "chutz la'aretz" versus territorial Eretz Yisrael without kedusha? The shiur analyzes Tosafot's famous difficulty on Gittin 2a and develops the Rabbeinu Tam's position that ownership of Eretz Yisrael never lapsed in galus—only yishuv (settlement) determines kedusha. The discussion clarifies why the Mishna uses "Medinas HaYam" rather than "chutz la'aretz" for the bifnei nechtem requirement.
The shiur opens by reviewing the question introduced yesterday: Why does Surya (Syria) have a status of kibbush yachid? Rashi (רש"י) explains that Surya is kibbush yachid because it was not conquered by kol Yisroel. Tosafot, citing a Midrash Sifrei, says it is kibbush yachid because Dovid HaMelech conquered Surya before completing the conquest of the seven Canaanite nations—therefore it was not done b'seder (in order) and is considered a private conquest rather than a national one. The Rambam (רמב"ם) brings both reasons, and the shiur suggests that the Rambam is presenting two distinct halachos. In Hilchos Terumah, the Rambam first cites Rashi's reason (needs to be in the name of kol Yisroel), and in the next halacha (הלכה) cites Tosafot's reason (needs to be done b'seder). The shiur proposes that there are two separate conditions for kedusha: lands that do not originally belong to Am Yisroel require conquest b'das rov Yisroel and b'shem kol Yisroel. Lands that already belong to Am Yisroel (from the promise to Avrohom Avinu) do not require conquest b'shem kol Yisroel, but a shevet cannot simply take its portion for itself because that would be theft from the rest of Klal Yisroel. That is why Yehoshua divided Eretz Yisroel among the shevatim before the conquest—each shevet then conquered its own allocated portion and was not stealing from the others.
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.
