No community start suggestion yet.
How can a minor convert (ger katon) have agency for others through zechiyah when minors cannot normally serve as agents? Tosafot develops two approaches: the conversion itself grants agency potential, or since the minor will inevitably become an adult agent, current agency is justified.
This shiur analyzes Tosafot's complex discussion on Kesubos 11a regarding ger katon (minor converts) and the fundamental problem of agency. The Gemara (גמרא) establishes that one can be zocheh (acquire) for a ger katon, but Tosafot raises a crucial difficulty: how can this work when there is no shlichut (agency) for a minor, and agency is typically required for zechiyah to function? Tosafot presents two solutions to this dilemma. The first approach suggests that since the conversion process itself (gerus) is only derabbanan (rabbinically ordained), it creates a special form of agency that wouldn't exist under Torah (תורה) law. This rabbinic gerus grants the minor a form of shlichut that enables zechiyah to work on his behalf.
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.
