A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When a husband throws a get to his wife, must she be standing within her dalamos or merely beside it? The Gemara (גמרא)'s debate between Ulla and Raboshea reveals two distinct dinim: kinyan yad (acquisition through proximity) versus nisina b'yad (placing directly into her domain). Rabbi Zweig develops the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position that when she owns the property, b'tzad is sufficient, but when the husband merely lends her a place, she must be b'soch—inside the space.
This shiur explores a fundamental sugya in Gittin 77b concerning the parameters of valid divorce when a get is thrown into a woman's domain. The Mishna states that if the get lands "besoch chatzerah" (within her courtyard), she is divorced. However, the Gemara (גמרא)'s language raises a critical question: why does the Mishna require "besoch" (inside) when in other contexts, "betzad" (beside) her courtyard would suffice? The Gemara presents a debate between Ulla and Raboshea. Ulla states "chatzer mishum yad"—that a courtyard works like one's hand. Just as something placed near your hand is considered in your possession, so too something placed near (smucha) your courtyard is acquired. Raboshea challenges this: "Ma yada bedvuka"—if you're comparing it to a hand, then just as a hand requires dvuka (attachment), so too should the courtyard require the woman to be physically present on it.
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.
