A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does zechiyah (acquiring on someone's behalf) work for a katan who cannot appoint a shliach? Tosafos (תוספות) on Kesubos 11a offers two approaches: either shlichus requires formal appointment while zechiyah works through assumed consent, or zechiyah represents the primary form of shlichus needing only beneficial intent. The analysis clarifies when empowerment through shlichus is required versus when zechiyah alone suffices.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of a fundamental question in Jewish law: the relationship between zechiyah (acquiring on someone's behalf) and shlichus (agency). The discussion centers on Tosafos (תוספות)' commentary on Kesubos 11a, where two different approaches are presented to explain why zechiyah works despite the fact that a katan (minor) cannot appoint a shliach (agent). The first approach of Tosafos holds that shlichus requires an actual appointment - one must explicitly tell someone "please do this for me" or command them to act. Simply expressing a desire that someone do something is not considered shlichus, as it's merely giluy da'as (revelation of intent) rather than actual appointment. Therefore, zechiyah must work through the principle of "anan sahadi de-avda de-shliach" - we assume that had the person known, he would have appointed the agent. This allows zechiyah to function even for a katan who cannot make formal appointments.
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.
