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.
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.
