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.
When an animal damages crops, the Torah prescribes a unique payment formula based on multiplying the damaged area by sixty. Does this formula redefine the actual loss, or does it merely create a payment mechanism that still acknowledges the full damage sustained? The Gemara explores whether someone who ate in doubt should pay the higher-quality amount, examining how the principle of motzi me-chaveiro alav haraya applies when payments fall within the range of actual loss.
What makes testimony valid when different witnesses testify to different parts of the same event? The Gemara debates whether the principle of "davar v'lo chatzi davar" (complete testimony, not partial) disqualifies witnesses who testify separately to theft and slaughter. Rashi's approach reveals that the issue is not merely combining elements, but whether each witness's statement is independently meaningful.
Why is a ganav who sells a stolen animal on Shabbos exempt from the fourfold/fivefold payment? The shiur analyzes whether this exemption stems from kam lei b'derabbah or from the absence of a valid mechira. The Rashba's principle that matana resembles mechira when it is "nishtarish b'chet" is explored, along with the Rambam's position on hekdesh and the distinction between giving to bedek habayis versus mizbe'ach.
When a ganav shechts a stolen animal l'avodah zarah, why isn't he patur from payment since it's already isur hana'ah? The shiur explores the fundamental machloket Rashi-Tosafot on whether the isur derives from the act of shechita or from the din shechita itself. The Gemara's application of davar garem be'mamon ke'mamon domi extends the analysis to when borrowed animals become niskal.
