A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When a get falls in his daled amos and she enters, is it valid? The shiur analyzes the Rashba's position that the first one there excludes the second, contrasting it with Rashi (רש"י)'s view that daled amos creates a kinyan for the one standing there. The discussion explores whether yachol lishmoram means actual physical ability to retrieve the get or merely legal proximity.
This shiur continues yesterday's analysis of Gittin 78b, focusing on the case where a get falls in the husband's daled amos and the wife enters to be koneh. The central question is whether the husband being there first precludes the wife from acquiring the get. According to the Rashba's position, "kor v'lo" (he came and she came afterward) creates a fundamental problem: since he arrived at the daled amos first, it is his daled amos, and her subsequent entry cannot effect a valid kinyan even though she has the right to acquire the get there. The shiur raises a difficulty with this approach: if the first person's presence automatically precludes the second, the Gemara (גמרא)'s entire discussion about whether they can both acquire simultaneously (efshar l'tsamtem) seems misplaced—the Gemara should have immediately asked about sequential arrival rather than going through the stage of simultaneous presence.
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 78b
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.
