No community start suggestion yet.
What is the status of a ger katon who declares 'higdili echol limchos' - does this statement retroactively nullify his conversion or only stop the process going forward? The shiur develops Rashi (רש"י)'s position that higdili echol limchos creates a 'miktzas ger' status - neither full Jew nor full goy. This explains why beis din cannot punish him for past acts and why kiddushin performed after his declaration lacks validity.
The shiur analyzes Kesubos 11a regarding a ger katon (minor convert) who declares 'higdili echol limchos' (I reject all of these obligations) upon reaching maturity. The central question is whether this declaration works retroactively (l'mafrayah) to nullify his entire conversion history, or only affects his status going forward (mikan v'eilach). Rashi (רש"י)'s commentary presents a puzzle: he states both that beis din cannot punish the former ger for transgressions committed while he was considered Jewish, and separately that any kiddushin (marriage) he performs after his declaration is invalid and requires no get. This dual formulation suggests Rashi is making a subtle distinction about the ger's status.
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.
