No community start suggestion yet.
What is the nature of gerus - conversion to religion or nationality? The shiur develops a fundamental chakira that there are two stages: gerus creates Jewish nationality without kabbalas mitzvos, while ger tzedek requires accepting full religious obligations. This resolves major difficulties in Rashi (רש"י) and the Rambam (רמב"ם) regarding yefas toar and the story of Amnon and Tamar.
This shiur presents a revolutionary understanding of gerus through analyzing a fundamental disagreement between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) regarding conversion of minors and adults. The core question emerges: what is the essential nature of gerus - is it conversion to the Jewish religion or to Jewish nationality? The shiur begins by examining Kesubos 11a and the principle of higdilu cholimchos, where the Gemara (גמרא) discusses giving money to converts that they could potentially reject later. Rashi's position that gerus can be derabbanan creates serious difficulties, particularly regarding the permissibility of stam yaynam and living with such converts.
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.
