No community start suggestion yet.
When can beis din convert a minor without his consent? The gemara (גמרא) establishes that conversion must be a benefit (zechus), not a burden (chovah). Three approaches emerge: family unity makes it beneficial, parental approval adds value to the equation, or circumstances determine whether Jewish life is advantageous.
The shiur analyzes the fundamental question in Kesubos 11a regarding when beis din can convert a minor (ger katan) without his consent, focusing on the principle that one can only act for another's benefit (zachin l'adam shelo befanav) but not to impose a burden (chovah). The gemara (גמרא) presents the case where a minor converts along with his parents versus when only his mother brings him for conversion. Rabbi Zweig examines why conversion is considered a zechus when done with parents but potentially a chovah when done alone. Three primary explanations are developed: First, following Shmuel's approach, when converting with family, there's a benefit of maintaining family unity - separation from parents would be worse than any burden of Jewish observance. Second, Boaz's approach suggests that parental approval itself adds value to the equation - the child gains something meaningful from doing what his parents want and receiving their approval.
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.
