No community start suggestion yet.
How do we understand the status of a ger katan before and after becoming obligated in mitzvos? The shiur develops distinctions between different types of conversion obligations and explores whether the Gemara (גמרא)'s principle of "higdil v'lo michah" applies equally to all cases of minor converts.
This comprehensive shiur analyzes multiple complex issues in Kesubos 11a regarding the status of a ger katan (minor convert) and related conversion laws. The shiur begins by examining the status of an eved (slave) after shichrur (manumission), noting that the Rambam (רמב"ם) requires a second tevilah for complete gerus. This raises fundamental questions about his intermediate halakhic status - is he permitted to live with a shifcha before the second tevilah, and what mitzvah (מצוה) obligations apply? A major focus is resolving Tosafos (תוספות)'s difficulty regarding how the Gemara (גמרא) answers Rav Yosef's question about ger katan with "higdil v'lo michah" (grew up and didn't protest). The Rivash and Gra cite this as proof that the principle applies to all conversion cases, not just specific circumstances. The shiur proposes that the distinction lies in who assumes responsibility for the minor's Jewish education - only when proper chinuch is guaranteed does the conversion avoid being considered a liability.
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.
