A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why do we suspect forged documents (mezuyaf) in divorce (get) but treat monetary documents differently? The shiur analyzes Tosfos's approach versus the Ran's: Tosfos holds concern for forgery protects Beis Din's credibility (lo tafsis chayil achol beriah), not the parties. The Ran argues there's no basis to suspect forgery in divorce since we don't protect the husband's "ownership" of his wife.
The shiur analyzes a fundamental debate between Tosfos and the Ran regarding the concern for forged documents (chashash mezuyos) in different legal contexts. The discussion centers on Gittin 2a and a Mishna stating that a woman can remarry based on a get even without witnesses certifying its authenticity (ein tzarich lekayyeim). Tosfos raises a question from this Mishna: if we don't require certification of divorce documents, why do we require it for monetary documents? Tosfos answers that divorce has a special leniency (kula) due to the principle of igul ikul bara boni (we don't withhold women from marriage), but in monetary matters we apply lo tafsis chayil achol beriah (concern that unscrupulous people will exploit the system) and therefore require certification.
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.
