No community start suggestion yet.
Does an eved nirtzah (Hebrew servant who chooses perpetual servitude) eat terumah? The shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא)'s distinction between kinyan shanim (time-limited acquisition) and kinyan olam (perpetual acquisition). Rashi (רש"י) establishes that even nirtzah is not guf hakoneh like an eved Canaani, yet the Torah (תורה)'s double language ("toshav" and "sachir") teaches that nirtzah—though serving forever—still doesn't eat terumah, revealing the parameters of employment versus ownership.
The Gemara (גמרא) on Kiddushin 4a discusses whether an eved Ivri (Hebrew servant) who becomes nirtzah—choosing to serve his master permanently—may eat terumah. The central tension is understanding the kinyan (legal acquisition) status of such a servant. The shiur begins by examining Rashi (רש"י)'s position that an eved Ivri, even one who is nirtzah, is not a guf hakoneh (bodily acquisition) like an eved Canaani (Canaanite slave). The master does not own the servant's body and cannot sell him. This is explicit in Rashi and fundamental to the entire discussion. The Gemara uses the Torah (תורה)'s double language—"lo toshav v'lo sachir"—to teach that neither a toshav nor a sachir eats terumah. The shiur explores why the Torah uses this redundant formulation rather than stating the halacha (הלכה) directly. One possibility is that the Torah could have written it as a milsa d'asi b'kal v'chomer (a law derivable through logical inference): if a nirtzah doesn't eat terumah, certainly a sachir (hired worker) doesn't eat. Instead, the Torah writes both explicitly using the formulation "ka zeh v'lo mi'al zeh" (like this and not like that).
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.
