A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Does kluta k'mishun chadamya require actual mechitzot (walls) for kinyan, or are halachic walls sufficient? The Gemara (גמרא) and Tosafot reveal that while Hilchot Shabbos (שבת) may accept gud asik mechitza, kinyan requires mechitzot nekarot—real, physical walls. Three possibilities emerge: three walls, four walls with a valid pesach (פסח), or four complete walls, depending on the severity of the requirement.
This shiur analyzes Gittin 79a and the complex sugya regarding the requirements of kluta k'mishun chadamya (as if it rests on the ground) for kinyan (acquisition). The Gemara (גמרא) asks "haloy mintar"—isn't it subject to blowing away? The shiur reveals that Tosafot fundamentally reinterprets this entire sugya, arguing that the mechitza (wall) requirement is not about physically preventing the get from blowing away, but rather about creating the halachic status needed for kluta k'mishun chadamya to work. Tosafot presents three approaches to what constitutes adequate mechitzot: (1) three walls are sufficient, creating a reshut hayachid d'rabbanan; (2) four walls are needed, but a pesach (פסח) (halachic opening) does not invalidate a wall; (3) four complete physical walls are required. The shiur demonstrates that these distinctions are not about wind protection but about defining what level of enclosure creates the din of kluta for kinyan purposes.
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.
