No community start suggestion yet.
Does a get require physical transfer (nesina), or can kinyanim suffice? The shiur analyzes Rashi (רש"י)'s view that kinyan agav works because the husband actively transfers the get to the wife's domain, versus the Ran's position that only actual nesina—moving the get from husband's to wife's reshus—satisfies the Torah (תורה) requirement. The fundamental chakira: must the object move, or only the ownership?
This shiur presents an in-depth analysis of a fundamental dispute between Rashi (רש"י) and the Ran concerning the mechanics of transferring a get (bill of divorce) and whether kinyanim (formal acquisitions) can substitute for direct physical transfer. The discussion centers on Gittin 77b and its relationship to the sugya on daf 21a regarding kinyan chatzer. Rashi's position is that kinyan agav (acquisition of movable property alongside real estate) is effective for divorce. The Ran challenges this with two kashas: First, if kinyan agav works, why do you need sibur (enclosure)? Second, the Ran himself rules elsewhere that kinyanim cannot effectuate a get—only nesina (giving/transfer) works. This creates an apparent contradiction in Rashi's approach, since Rashi also holds elsewhere that with eved ivri (Hebrew servant), even when you give the freedom document to a messenger with instructions "tenu" (give it), the servant is not free until the document reaches his hand, even though the master cannot retract.
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 77b
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.
