No community start suggestion yet.
When a get is placed in a woman's courtyard (chatzer), does it work through ownership (kinyan) or an expanded definition of "giving into her hand"? Rashi (רש"י) sees chatzer as creating ownership—a "nesina kol du" (constructive giving)—while Tosafos (תוספות) views chatzer as an extension of yado itself (klal u'prat u'klal). This fundamental dispute has major implications for whether issur hana'ah works in chatzer and how the parallel gemara (גמרא) regarding theft (geneivah) should be understood.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental dispute between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) on Gittin 77b regarding how kinyan chatzer (courtyard acquisition) operates in the context of divorce and theft. The discussion opens with a close reading of Rashi on the Mishna, which states that if a husband throws a get into his wife's courtyard, she is divorced through the principle of "konso chatzer ke'ilu nasan b'yado" (acquiring the courtyard is like placing it in her hand). Rabbi Zweig challenges Rashi's formulation, asking why kinyan is needed at all in gittin. The Torah (תורה) permits writing a get even on issur hana'ah (something from which one may not derive benefit), where no kinyan is possible since there is no ownership. If divorce merely requires the physical transfer of the get from husband to wife—not ownership—why does Rashi invoke kinyan chatzer? This suggests Rashi holds there are two distinct mechanisms for gittin: actual nesina (placing in her hand) and nesina kol du (constructive giving through ownership). When the get is in her chatzer, she becomes the owner, and this ownership is equivalent to nesina even though it wasn't physically handed to her.
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.
