No community start suggestion yet.
What is the halachic status of a ger katan who grows up and rejects Judaism? Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) dispute whether such gerus creates only rabbinic obligations versus full Jewish status. The shiur develops a fundamental distinction between gerus that makes one an "Israeli" (part of Am Yisrael nationally) versus gerus that creates full religious obligation in all 613 mitzvos.
The shiur analyzes a fundamental dispute between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) regarding ger katan (a minor convert). When the Gemara (גמרא) discusses whether such a person can marry a Jewish woman and receive knas (fine for rape), Tosafos assumes this proves the ger has full Jewish status, while Rashi holds it's only a rabbinic level of Jewishness affecting yayin nesach prohibitions. Rabbi Zweig develops a comprehensive framework distinguishing between two types of gerus. The first creates "Israeli" status - membership in Am Yisrael as a nation without full mitzvah (מצוה) obligations. The second is gerus tzedek, creating complete religious obligation. This explains the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s complex position in Hilchos Melachim regarding conversions during Dovid and Shlomo's reigns, where the Rambam says converts were "yotzei mechlal goyim" (left the category of gentiles) but their ultimate status remained uncertain. The shiur applies this framework to resolve the contradiction between different Talmudic passages about gerei arayos (converts for ulterior motives) - they are considered gerim regarding nationality but goyim regarding certain ritual obligations like shechita. The analysis extends to yefas toar (beautiful captive woman), where the Torah (תורה) permits a unique form of forced conversion creating Israeli status with kiddushin taking effect, though without full mitzvah obligation. This resolves Tosafos' question about Amnon and Tamar - since Maacah (Tamar's mother) underwent gerus under duress, making her an Israeli but not fully Jewish, when Tamar later converted properly, she gained the status of "ger she-nitgayer katan she-nolad" (like a newborn), eliminating her family relationship to Amnon. The Rambam extends this principle further than Rashi, holding that any ger who is yotzei mechlal goyim has tofeis kiddushin (effective kiddushin), while Rashi limits this chiddush to the special case of yefas toar.
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.
