No community start suggestion yet.
What makes a get valid when thrown near but not directly into a woman's hand? The shiur analyzes the dispute between the Ramban (רמב"ן), Rambam (רמב"ם), and Rama regarding karov lo (throwing close), da'at amos (four cubits), and whether these work through kinyan (acquisition) or yad (the concept of "hand"). The analysis shows how different Rishonim define when something is considered "in her hand" for gittin.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of Gittin 78b, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of how a get (bill of divorce) becomes valid when it is not placed directly into the woman's hand but thrown near her. The central question is whether karov lo (throwing the get close to the woman) creates a valid divorce, and if so, what is the mechanism that makes it work. The shiur begins by examining the Ramban (רמב"ן)'s position that karov lo works because of takanas chachamim (rabbinic enactment), and that one should not use this method lechatchila (ab initio) because emergency legislation should only be used when necessary. The question arises: if karov lo only works because of rabbinic enactment, what is the nature of this get? This leads to a fundamental inquiry into whether the mechanism is based on kinyan (acquisition) or yad (an extension of the woman's hand).
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 78b
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.
