No community start suggestion yet.
When a husband sends a get and then tries to cancel it before it reaches his wife, can the cancellation work? The Gemara (גמרא) explores whether dibur (speech) can be mevatel (nullify) dibur, and whether cancellation can be done through a shaliach. Rabbi Zweig develops the yesod that there are two fundamentally different types of shlichut—one where the shaliach becomes the sender (gerushin), and one where the shaliach merely acts on behalf (kiddushin)—which explains the entire sugya's mechanics.
This shiur analyzes Gittin 79a, which discusses the laws of canceling a get (divorce document) after it has been sent through a shaliach but before it reaches the wife. The Mishna presents two cases: when the husband catches up to the shaliach directly, and when he sends a second shaliach to cancel the first one. In both cases, the husband declares "get zu botel" (this get is canceled), and the Mishna rules that indeed the get is canceled. The Gemara (גמרא) raises a fundamental question: we already know from the first case that a husband can cancel a get by catching up to the shaliach directly, so why does the Mishna need to teach the second case of sending a shaliach to cancel? Isn't shlichut for cancellation obvious once we know direct cancellation works?
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 79a
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.
