No community start suggestion yet.
When can a minor be converted against his future will? The Gemara (גמרא) discusses whether ger katan magbilin oso al das beis din creates a permanent conversion or allows for rejection upon reaching majority. Rashi (רש"י)'s interpretation that parents must bring the child raises questions about the scope of zachin adam shelo b'fanav and its application to gerus d'rabanan.
The shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Kesubos 11a dealing with the conversion of minors (ger katan). The central issue is the Gemara (גמרא)'s statement that 'ger katan magbilin oso al das beis din' - a minor convert is immersed based on the authority of beis din. This raises fundamental questions about the principle of zachin adam shelo b'fanav (we may act for someone's benefit in his absence) and how it applies to conversion. Rashi (רש"י)'s commentary presents several difficulties. He states that if there is no father, the mother brings him to convert (im ein lo av imo hevi otah l'gayer), implying that parental involvement is necessary. However, this creates a contradiction with the later Gemara's discussion of higdil yachol limchos (when he matures he can protest), where Rashi maintains this applies even when parents convert together with children. If parental authority negates the need for zachin, why would protest be possible when parents are involved?
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.
