No community start suggestion yet.
How does a woman acquire her get when it lands in her courtyard and then rolls? The Rambam (רמב"ם) and Maggid Mishna seem unclear on whether a pisla (raised area) invalidates the divorce inside or outside dalet amos. The shiur develops a chiddush distinguishing kinyan yad from kinyan chatzer: a get that lands within dalet amos establishes a "yad" that expands as it rolls, but rolling onto a separate pisla creates "two places," invalidating the divorce.
This shiur analyzes a difficult Rambam (רמב"ם) in Hilchos Gerushin regarding the acquisition of a get (divorce document) through kinyan chatzer. The Rambam states that if a get falls within dalet amos (four cubits) of a woman, she is divorced. If it falls outside dalet amos, she is not divorced. However, if it lands within her domain but then rolls to a distant place (makom rachok), the Rambam distinguishes: if it rolls onto a regular part of the courtyard, the divorce is valid; if it rolls onto a pisla (raised area) that is at least dalet by dalet in size, the divorce is invalid. Rabbi Zweig begins by noting that the Maggid Mishna's explanation of this Rambam is extremely difficult to understand. The Maggid presents two possible interpretations, neither of which seems to fit the actual language of the Rambam. According to the first interpretation, the get must fall within dalet amos, and a pisla is problematic even within dalet amos. According to the second interpretation, the entire courtyard effects acquisition, but a pisla makes a difference only regarding whether it is within or outside dalet amos. The problem is that the Rambam's language—particularly the phrase "rachok mimenah" (distant from her)—seems incompatible with both readings.
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.
