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.
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.
