No community start suggestion yet.
How can a pregnant woman convert her unborn child when the principle is "ein shlichas lekatan" - there's no agency for minors? Tosafot offers two approaches: either conversion is only rabbinical for such cases, or the mother has total control (bailout) over the fetus, making agency unnecessary.
This shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Kesubos 11a regarding the conversion of minors, specifically focusing on the case of a pregnant convert (muberish nisgaira). The central question revolves around the principle of "ein shlichas lekatan" - that one cannot serve as an agent for a minor - and how this applies to conversion, which involves both benefits (zchus) and obligations (chov). Tosafot presents two approaches to resolve this difficulty. The first teretz holds that the conversion of a minor is only mid'rabbanan (rabbinical) because when there are both benefits and obligations involved, proper agency is required, which a minor cannot provide. Since the minor cannot appoint an agent, the conversion only works rabbinically. The second teretz maintains that conversion is a complete benefit (zchus gamur), making it valid mid'oraisa (biblical).
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.
