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.
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.
