A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why doesn't an eved ivri eat terumah? The Gemara (גמרא) excludes him through "toshav v'sachir," but commentators debate whether ownership (kinyan kesef) or household membership determines who eats. The shiur resolves tensions in the Rambam (רמב"ם) by distinguishing two categories: actual property (eved kena'ani, behemah) and household members whose connection flows from kinyan kesef creating nesu'in obligations (wife).
The Gemara (גמרא) on Kiddushin 4a explains that "toshav v'sachir lo yochelu bo" teaches that certain categories of workers don't eat terumah. Toshav refers to an eved nirtzah (perpetual servant), sachir refers to a six-year servant, and the combination excludes an eved ivri from eating terumah. The fundamental question is: why does the Torah (תורה) need both exclusions when stating nirtzah alone would suffice? The Rambam (רמב"ם) in Hilchos Terumah 6:5 presents a puzzle. He writes that a zar may not eat terumah, "even if he is a toshav kohen or his sachir... and an eved ivri is like toshav v'sachir." The Kesef Mishneh asks: what does "eved ivri is like toshav v'sachir" mean? That's exactly what the discussion is about—toshav and sachir ARE eved ivri categories. The Radvaz suggests toshav-sachir means a regular employee, but this creates further difficulties with the Rambam's language.
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!
Kiddushin 4a
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.
