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.
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.
