A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
How does placing a get in a wife's property effect divorce when she performs no action? The shiur develops a fundamental machloket between Rashi (רש"י) and the Tur: Rashi holds ownership transfer itself constitutes nisina kol dehu—a valid form of "giving"—while the Tur maintains the Torah (תורה) merely expanded what qualifies as "her hand" to include her property, but full nisina from the husband remains required.
This shiur on Gittin 77a analyzes the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of how a get can be given to a woman through her chatzer (property) rather than directly into her hand. The Gemara derives from the pasuk "v'nasan b'yadah" that nisina (giving) can occur in multiple ways beyond physical hand-to-hand transfer. The shiur opens with the Mishna and Gemara that establish a wife can be divorced by placing the get in her chatzer, even though she performs no physical action. Rashi (רש"י) explains this works because "chatzer konah lah k'ilu nasan b'yadah"—her property acquires for her as if he gave it into her hand. The Gemara learns this from the fact that the Torah (תורה) says "v'nasan" rather than "b'yadah yitnena," teaching nisina kol dehu—that various forms of giving are valid.
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 77a
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.
