No community start suggestion yet.
How does zechiyah (acquiring on someone's behalf) relate to shlichus (agency)? The shiur develops competing approaches - whether zechiyah works through an implied agency arrangement, or functions as a separate Torah (תורה)-granted power. A katan's inability to appoint an agent but ability to benefit from zechiyah becomes the test case.
This comprehensive Gemara (גמרא) shiur explores the fundamental relationship between zechiyah (acquiring on someone's behalf) and shlichus (agency) through detailed analysis of Tosafos (תוספות)' two approaches on Kesubos 11a. The shiur begins by reviewing Tosafos' first approach: zechiyah works through 'anan sahadi d'avid d'shaliach' (we assume he would want to act as his agent), requiring actual appointment of an agent. The second approach holds that shlichus itself merely requires giluy daas (revealing intent) - any situation where someone wants something done allows another to act as their agent. Rabbi Zweig then introduces the Ketzos HaChoshen's novel third approach: zechiyah functions as shlichus but without requiring minui shlichus (formal appointment). A katan cannot make formal appointments but can still benefit from zechiyah since no active appointment is needed - someone else simply acts on their behalf. This distinguishes zechiyah from regular shlichus while maintaining their connection.
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!
Kesubos 11a
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.
