A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does Beis Din defend absent parties differently depending on whether the claim is peruah (paid) or mezuyef (forged)? The shiur develops the principle that taninim applies only when the absent party would have a winning argument—peruah with its megu creates a victory, while mezuyef merely raises doubt. This distinction reshapes how we understand protection of orphans' estates and the validity of gittin without witnesses present.
This shiur explores a fundamental sugya in Gittin 2a concerning the principle of taninim—Beis Din's obligation to defend the rights of absent parties, particularly orphans whose father has died. The central question is whether Beis Din raises all possible objections on behalf of the absent party, or only those objections that would result in victory if the party were present. The Gemara (גמרא) presents a case where someone brings a shtar (document) to collect from orphans. Tosafos (תוספות) asks: do we suspect mezuyef (forgery) on behalf of the orphans? The initial logic suggests we should—otherwise, anyone could forge documents and collect from orphans' estates (lo shaf kaschayil choberia). However, Tosafos distinguishes between peruah (claiming payment) and mezuyef (claiming forgery). When the borrower claims peruah against a non-verified shtar, he is believed due to a megu—he could have claimed mezuyef instead. This megu makes peruah a winning argument. But mezuyef alone, without the megu, is merely an objection that shifts the burden of proof back to the lender.
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.
