No community start suggestion yet.
How can we give a ketubah to a minor convert who might later reject her conversion? The shiur analyzes whether ger katan works retroactively (l'mafre) or from now forward (m'kan l'haba), exploring the fundamental tension between rabbinic conversion's tentative nature and the concrete obligation of ketubah payments.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of Kesubos 11a, focusing on the complex sugya of ger katan (minor conversion) and its implications for ketubah obligations. The Gemara (גמרא) presents a fundamental question: if we give a ketubah to a female minor convert, what happens if she later exercises her right of higdil chol limchas (rejecting the conversion upon reaching maturity)? The phrase "oz l'vachla b'giyusa" - that she will "eat it as a non-Jew" - becomes the crux of the discussion. Rabbi Zweig explores two primary interpretations of this phrase. The simpler reading suggests she would receive money legitimately due to her but spend it after becoming a non-Jew. However, the more sophisticated interpretation holds that the money was never legitimately hers to begin with, since her conversion might be rejected retroactively.
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.
