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.
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.
