A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
How does zechiyah (acting for another's benefit) work for a katan who cannot appoint a shliach? Tosafos (תוספות) develops two approaches: either zechiyah derives from shlichus (requiring full da'as), or shlichus derives from zechiyah (working through umdana when it's a clear benefit).
The shiur analyzes Tosafos (תוספות)'s fundamental question about the relationship between zechiyah (acting for someone's benefit) and shlichus (agency) in Jewish law. Tosafos begins by establishing that zechiyah operates through the principle of shlichus - we assume (anan sa'hadi) that the beneficiary would want to appoint the actor as his agent. This creates a logical problem: if a katan (minor) cannot legally appoint a shliach according to the Gemara (גמרא) in Gittin, how can anyone act for his benefit through zechiyah? Tosafos presents two distinct approaches to resolve this difficulty. In his first answer, he maintains that zechiyah is fundamentally based on shlichus, but argues that a katan is only excluded from the general laws of shlichus when the matter involves potential detriment. When something is purely beneficial (zechus gamur), even a katan can be included in the framework of agency. The logic is that for matters like separating terumah, where there might be different preferences about how much to give, we cannot assume what someone truly wants. But for clear benefits, no such uncertainty exists.
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.
