A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What is gerus fundamentally - a religious ritual bringing one closer to God, or a naturalization process joining the Jewish people? The sugya of ger katan reveals this tension through the mechanism of zechiyah and daas beis din. The shiur explores whether conversion is about spiritual transformation or acquiring Jewish citizenship, with practical ramifications for the din of higdilu chol limchos.
This shiur presents a fundamental reexamination of the nature of gerus through the lens of ger katan on Kesubos 11a. Rabbi Zweig begins by noting apparent contradictions in Rashi (רש"י)'s approach - why does a ger katan need daas beis din if the Mishna establishes gerus d'Oraisa, and why doesn't the Rif mention higdilu chol limchos? The core question emerges: What is gerus essentially? The shiur contrasts two possible understandings. The conventional view sees gerus as a religious ritual - milah removes tumas akum, tevilah confers kedushas Yisrael, creating spiritual transformation through religious experience. Under this model, an adult needs no zechiyah since he undergoes the full religious ritual with proper kavanah, while a katan lacks understanding and requires beis din to transform his physical actions into religious mitzvos through their daas.
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.
