No community start suggestion yet.
What is the scope of taninim—raising objections on behalf of an absent defendant? The shiur distinguishes between taninim mezuyef (challenging authenticity) and taninim peruah (claiming payment), arguing that a mezuyef claim merely contests the proof, not the underlying obligation, whereas peruah has the force of a migu. Tosafot's progression through shtar kinyan and shtar rayah cases demonstrates that taninim applies even when only the proof—not the substantive claim—is challenged.
This shiur presents an intricate analysis of Tosafot on Gittin 2a concerning the principle of taninim—the court's raising of objections on behalf of an absent defendant. The opening question is why Tosafot introduces the concept of taninim at all when discussing whether a get can be declared mezuyef (forged). The shiur argues that taninim is not about the court's own doubts regarding the validity of a document; rather, it addresses whether the court must protect the absent party's rights by raising arguments he would have made if present. The shiur distinguishes sharply between two types of defensive claims: mezuyef (forgery) and peruah (payment). When a defendant claims peruah, he is not merely challenging the proof but asserting a substantive defense with the force of a migu—since he could have claimed mezuyef, his admission that the document is valid but paid gives his claim credibility. By contrast, a claim of mezuyef does not address the underlying obligation; it merely contests the proof. The defendant is saying "prove it," not "I don't owe." This distinction is critical: taninim peruah means the court would be ruling against someone who, if present, would prevail. Taninim mezuyef means only that the court cannot act without proof—but it does not mean the absent party has substantive equity on his side.
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.
