A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When a husband throws a get that lands partially in his daled amos and partially in hers, why isn't she divorced? The shiur develops the Gemara (גמרא)'s distinction between arba amos shelo (one person's space) and arba amos shenayim (shared space). A fundamental chiddush emerges: partial presence of the get in her space would normally suffice for divorce, but his simultaneous ownership in that space blocks the kinyan.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of Gittin 78b, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of when a get (bill of divorce) is valid based on where it lands relative to the daled amos (four cubits) of the husband and wife. The central question is understanding the distinction between a case where the get lands in "arba amos shelo" (within the wife's four amos but also touching the husband's space) versus "arba amos shenayim" (in a space shared equally by both parties). Rabbi Zweig begins by establishing that when the Gemara says a get landing in arba amos shelo is invalid, this must mean something beyond the simple case of the get being completely outside her space. The reisha of the Mishna already taught that basic rule. Therefore, the Gemara must be teaching that even when the get IS within her arba amos, if it's also within his arba amos (arba amos shelo), she is not divorced. This leads to a fundamental chiddush: normally, having even part of the get within her daled amos would be sufficient for a valid divorce, but when part of the get simultaneously remains in his space, the kinyan fails.
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.
