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.
When an animal damages crops, the Torah prescribes a unique payment formula based on multiplying the damaged area by sixty. Does this formula redefine the actual loss, or does it merely create a payment mechanism that still acknowledges the full damage sustained? The Gemara explores whether someone who ate in doubt should pay the higher-quality amount, examining how the principle of motzi me-chaveiro alav haraya applies when payments fall within the range of actual loss.
What makes testimony valid when different witnesses testify to different parts of the same event? The Gemara debates whether the principle of "davar v'lo chatzi davar" (complete testimony, not partial) disqualifies witnesses who testify separately to theft and slaughter. Rashi's approach reveals that the issue is not merely combining elements, but whether each witness's statement is independently meaningful.
Why is a ganav who sells a stolen animal on Shabbos exempt from the fourfold/fivefold payment? The shiur analyzes whether this exemption stems from kam lei b'derabbah or from the absence of a valid mechira. The Rashba's principle that matana resembles mechira when it is "nishtarish b'chet" is explored, along with the Rambam's position on hekdesh and the distinction between giving to bedek habayis versus mizbe'ach.
When a ganav shechts a stolen animal l'avodah zarah, why isn't he patur from payment since it's already isur hana'ah? The shiur explores the fundamental machloket Rashi-Tosafot on whether the isur derives from the act of shechita or from the din shechita itself. The Gemara's application of davar garem be'mamon ke'mamon domi extends the analysis to when borrowed animals become niskal.
