No community start suggestion yet.
How does depositing a get in a woman's courtyard effect divorce - through yad (extension of hand) or shlichus (agency)? The shiur analyzes the Rashba's distinction between explicit appointment ('tizku li chatzeri') creating immediate shliach l'kabalah versus implicit request requiring proximity. A synthesis emerges that yad and shlichus are the same mechanism but differ in establishment - yad works automatically while shlichus requires explicit appointment.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of Gittin 77b, focusing on the fundamental machloket (dispute) between Ula and Rav Ashi regarding the mechanism by which a get (divorce document) deposited in a woman's chatzer (courtyard) effects divorce. The Gemara (גמרא) initially suggests that Ula holds chatzer works mishum yad (as an extension of hand) requiring the woman to stand next to it (medas betzidah), while Rav Ashi holds it works mishum shlichus (through agency) even when she's in a different city. However, the Gemara concludes that both agree chatzer works mishum yad, and the debate centers on whether yad requires physical proximity. The shiur extensively examines the Rashba's complex interpretation, which distinguishes between different types of agency. The Rashba argues that when a woman explicitly says 'tizku li chatzeri' (let my courtyard acquire for me), she creates a shliach l'kabalah (agent for receipt), making the divorce effective immediately upon deposit regardless of distance. However, if she merely requests that the get be thrown into her courtyard without this explicit language, she creates only a shliach l'hava'ah (agent for bringing), requiring her physical presence to complete the divorce.
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 77b
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.
