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.
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.
