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.
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.
