No community start suggestion yet.
What does Rashi (רש"י) mean when he says "אין לו אב" (he has no father) regarding converting a minor? The shiur develops that if there were a father, conversion couldn't happen due to ownership issues, not because zechiyah wouldn't apply. This reading resolves apparent contradictions in the Gemara (גמרא)'s flow.
The shiur begins with a detailed analysis of Rashi (רש"י)'s commentary on the principle of זכין לאדם שלא בפניו as applied to converting minors. Rabbi Zweig examines two aspects of Rashi's explanation: first, that we can only convert a child when "אין לו אב" (he has no father), and second, that "דאימו הביאו ליזגייר" (his mother brought him to be converted). The central difficulty is understanding why, if having a father would eliminate the need for zechiyah entirely, the Gemara (גמרא) doesn't simply answer the Mishna's case by saying the father was present. The shiur explores several possible interpretations. Initially considering that Rashi might mean conversion without zechiyah is possible when there's a father, Rabbi Zweig demonstrates this creates insurmountable problems with the Gemara's structure, particularly regarding היגדיל יכול למחות (when he matures, he can protest). If no zechiyah were needed with a father present, the entire discussion of למחות would be irrelevant.
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.
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.
