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.
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.
