No community start suggestion yet.
Can a minor convert to Judaism, and what's his status if he later objects? The Rambam (רמב"ם) holds conversion creates a real stage of "ger" with tfisat kedushin before becoming ger tzedek. Tosafos (תוספות)'s position that ger katan is only d'rabanan raises fundamental questions about rabbinic authority over gentiles.
This shiur explores a fundamental machlokes between the Rambam (רמב"ם) and Rashi (רש"י) regarding the conversion of minors (ger katan) and the nature of the conversion process itself. The discussion centers on whether there are two distinct halachic stages in conversion - being a "ger" versus being a "ger tzedek" - and what happens when a converted minor reaches maturity and objects to his conversion. According to the Rambam, there are two separate halachic categories: first becoming a "ger" (which includes tfisat kedushin but not full obligation in mitzvos), and then progressing to "ger tzedek" with complete kabbalat mitzvos. This framework explains various difficult cases, including the story of Machlon and Kilion in Sefer Rus. The Rambam holds that Machlon and Kilion's wives (Rus and Orpah) had undergone geirus and achieved the status of "ger" with tfisat kedushin, which is why the later yibum proceedings make halachic sense, and why these gdolei hador were only punished for violating middat chasidut (leaving Eretz Yisrael) rather than the capital offense of living with non-Jewish women.
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.
