No community start suggestion yet.
How can a minor gentile have legal agency when both being a minor and being a gentile normally disqualify someone? Tosafos (תוספות) offers two approaches: either he will eventually become an adult Jew, or we treat him as Jewish through the conversion process itself.
This shiur analyzes a complex Tosafos (תוספות) on Kesubos 11a dealing with the concept of agency (shlichut) for a minor gentile who is being converted. The fundamental question is how such a person can have legal standing when two factors normally disqualify someone from agency: being a minor (katan) and being a gentile (goy). The Gemara (גמרא) establishes that normally a minor has no agency midoraita, only midrabbanan, because eventually he will reach adulthood (asi l'klal). However, a gentile has no agency at all because he will never become part of the Jewish legal framework. Tosafos presents two resolutions to this apparent contradiction. The first approach suggests that because this gentile child will eventually become Jewish through conversion, he is considered 'asi l'klal' - destined to join the Jewish community with full legal standing. The second approach, described as 'git avyado bon k'echad,' treats him as already having Jewish status for the purposes of this legal transaction because the very act of acquiring property for him is part of the conversion process. Rabbi Zweig explores the profound implications of both approaches, particularly the second one which seems to suggest that the Sages can effectively declare someone Jewish for certain purposes even before formal conversion is complete. This raises fundamental questions about the nature of rabbinical authority and whether they can override Torah (תורה) law through the principle of 'yesh koach l'chachamim la'akor davar min haTorah.' The shiur also addresses practical halachic issues that arise from these approaches, such as whether such a person could observe Shabbos (שבת) (given the prohibition of 'nochri she'shavas chayav misah'), marry a Jewish woman, or perform other mitzvos while technically still a gentile. The discussion reveals the complex interplay between different areas of Jewish law and the extraordinary powers the Sages claimed in certain circumstances.
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.
