A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can one creditor seize collateral on behalf of another creditor when multiple creditors exist? The shiur analyzes the dispute between Rabbi Elazar and the Chachamim, examining whether the mechanism is tofes dibachov (creditor's seizure rights) or migud dezocheh (acquisition principles). Two fundamental approaches emerge: whether the problem is causing monetary loss to others or the inability to execute a valid kinyan without consent.
This shiur provides a comprehensive analysis of Gittin 11b, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of whether one person can acquire peyah (agricultural gifts for the poor) on behalf of another poor person. The Gemara presents a dispute between Rabbi Elazar, who holds that acquisition succeeds (zoche lo), and the Chachamim, who rule it should be given to the first poor person who arrives (yitnenu le'oni hanim tzarishon). Rabbi Zweig identifies two fundamental questions at the outset. First, there appears to be a contradiction between Rashi (רש"י)'s commentary in Gittin and his explanation in Bava Metzia regarding whether the case involves the landowner (baal hasadeh) or another person acting on behalf of the poor. Second, the language of the Chachamim is puzzling—why say "give it to the first poor person" rather than simply stating the acquisition doesn't work (lo zoche lo)?
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 11b
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.
