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.
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.
