No community start suggestion yet.
Why does Tosafot discuss whether we raise the claim of mezuyef (forgery) for an absent party? The shiur unpacks Tosafot's progression: taninan applies not only when the defendant would win outright, but even when he could merely challenge the evidence. This yields a counterintuitive result—a woman may be permitted to remarry based on a get (mishum igun), yet the husband's heirs might still block payment of her kesubah by raising the same forgery claim.
This shiur delivers an in-depth analysis of Tosafot on Gittin 2a, focusing on the principle of taninan—whether and when beis din raises objections on behalf of an absent litigant. Tosafot opens by noting that when a husband is away and the wife brings a get, we do not raise the claim of mezuyef (forgery) on his behalf, because mishum igun ekilu rabbanan—the Sages were lenient due to concerns about agunah. Yet Tosafot immediately asks: perhaps this leniency applies specifically to get, and in monetary cases we should still raise the claim of mezuyef on behalf of the absent party? Rabbi Zweig frames several difficulties with Tosafot's presentation. First, Tosafot's order seems backwards: instead of first establishing whether taninan mezuyef applies in general monetary law and then addressing get as a special exception, Tosafot begins with the get case and assumes from the outset that taninan mezuyef would ordinarily apply. Second, what is the distinction between igun ekilu rabbanan as a reason to reduce the number of witnesses and as a reason not to raise mezuyef? Third, why does Tosafot need multiple proofs (from shtar mecher/matanah, from yetomim cases, and from motav mishtarshe kasvei) when each seems independently decisive? Fourth, what is the conceptual difference between raising the claim of perua (payment) versus mezuyef, and why does Tosafot care?
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 2a
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.
