A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does Rashi (רש"י) explain the Gemara (גמרא)'s kinyan mechanism as kinyan agav rather than kinyan chatzer? The shiur resolves the Ran's two challenges to Rashi—that agav doesn't require the get to be on the specific land, and that it's not nosen beyado—by distinguishing ownership transfer in karka from possession transfer in metaltelin. Rashi holds both ownership and nosen beyado are required for get.
The shiur analyzes a fundamental dispute between Rashi (רש"י) and the Ran on Gittin 77b regarding the kinyan mechanism when a get is placed on land that is simultaneously transferred to the woman. Rashi explains the kinyan as kinyan agav—acquiring the land together with the get. The Ran raises two objections to Rashi's approach: First, if it's kinyan agav, why does the Gemara (גמרא) require that specifically the land under the get be transferred? Kinyan agav normally allows metaltelin anywhere to be acquired along with karka. Second, kinyan agav is not nosen beyado—the get is not physically handed to the woman, which is a requirement for a valid get. The shiur begins by examining why Rashi didn't explain the kinyan as kinyan chatzer. The Gemara in daf 21a clearly establishes that kinyan chatzer works for get, so why didn't Rashi apply it here? The answer requires understanding the Gemara on 21a: there, the kinyan works only when the husband actively transfers the chatzer to the woman through a shtar (deed), making him the mekane (transferor). In our case on 77b, the woman acquires the chatzer by opening and closing the door—she is performing the kinyan action herself, while the husband does nothing. This would not constitute nosen beyado according to Rashi, because the husband is not transferring anything; she is taking it herself.
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.
