No community start suggestion yet.
When a husband appoints an agent to deliver a get but then tries to cancel the agency, does that cancellation (bittul) work like normal agency revocation or is it fundamentally different? The shiur analyzes Gittin 79a, contrasting the machlokes between Reish Lakish and the Gemara (גמרא)'s position, exploring whether gittin shlichut involves creating a chalos (legal status) that cannot be reversed through standard bittul mechanisms—or whether the bittul simply means the get cannot act against the husband's will without destroying the agency itself.
This shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Gittin 79a concerning the nature of bittul shlichut (cancellation of agency) in the context of divorce law. The central question is whether canceling an agent's appointment to deliver a get (bill of divorce) works like ordinary agency revocation or operates on a fundamentally different principle. Rabbi Zweig frames the discussion around the machlokes between Reish Lakish and the Gemara (גמרא)'s position. Reish Lakish held that shlichut in gittin works like shlichut in kiddushin (marriage)—as a standard agency relationship where the agent acts on behalf of the principal. According to this view, the husband's subsequent bittul (revocation) should work normally: the agent loses his authority, but the get itself remains valid for later use. The Gemara, however, rejects Reish Lakish's position with a tiyuvta (refutation), holding instead that gittin shlichut is fundamentally different from kiddushin. In gittin, the appointment creates a chalos—a legal status transfer—that requires witnesses (eidim) and functions more like testimony (davar shebe'ervah) than like standard agency. This means the get is not merely a task delegated to an agent, but a chalos that the agent brings into being.
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 79a
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.
