A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What do we need zechiyah for in converting a minor? Rashi (רש"י) holds it's for the maaseh tevillah — making the act of immersion into a proper conversion act. Tosfos in Sanhedrin argues it's for the chalos geyrus — actually becoming Jewish itself.
The shiur analyzes a complex piece of Tosfos in Kesubos regarding ger katan (a minor convert) and the role of zechiyah sh'lo b'fanav (conferring benefit upon someone not present). Rabbi Zweig begins by identifying a fundamental machlokes between two Tosfos. In our Gemara (גמרא), Tosfos asks why a ger katan should work at all, since there's no shlichus for a minor, and therefore no zechiyah even m'derabbanan. However, Tosfos in Sanhedrin asks a broader question: even adult converts should be problematic since there's no din of shlichus by non-Jews at all. This leads to two possible understandings of what zechiyah accomplishes in conversion. The first possibility is that zechiyah is needed for the maaseh tevillah — to transform a simple act of immersion into a proper conversion ritual done l'shem geyrus. Since a minor lacks daas to have the proper intent, beis din must act on his behalf through zechiyah. The second possibility is that zechiyah is required for the chalos geyrus itself — actually becoming Jewish. This would apply even to adults, as suggested by Tosfos in Sanhedrin.
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.
