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.
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.
