A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can a woman be divorced when the get lands in her vessel that's in her husband's domain? The shiur analyzes whether the kinyan operates through chatzer (domain) or yad (hand), examining Rashi (רש"י)'s requirement of hagbah (lifting) versus Tosafos (תוספות)'s position that placement in the vessel suffices, with implications for how gittin acquire differently than standard kinyanim.
This shiur analyzes the sugya in Gittin 78a concerning a fundamental question in the laws of gittin (divorce): when a husband places a get in a vessel belonging to his wife while that vessel is still in his domain, has she acquired it? The Gemara (גמרא) establishes that if the vessel is gavuah asarah (elevated ten tefachim), the get is valid even though it remains in the husband's property. The shiur presents a fundamental dispute between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) on how kinyan (acquisition) works in this case. Rashi maintains that even when an object is already in one's hand (yad), one still needs to perform hagbah (lifting) of at least three tefachim for a kinyan to take effect. According to Rashi, the reason the get works when the vessel is elevated ten tefachim is that at that height, the vessel constitutes a reshus bifnei atzmo (domain unto itself), and the husband's domain cannot be mevatel (nullify) the wife's domain. Rashi adds that the space beneath must be usable by the husband—if the bed has sides that prevent use underneath, it wouldn't work.
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 78a
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.
