No community start suggestion yet.
Why does Abaye hold that a shifcha sold as a minor doesn't go free when she becomes a bogeres through aylonus, even though she retroactively becomes a gedolah? The shiur distinguishes between gadlus (halachic adulthood at a specific age) and maturity (physical development). Only maturity, not gadlus alone, can remove a girl from the reshus of the adon.
This shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Kiddushin 4a regarding when an amah ivriah (Jewish maidservant) goes free. The central problem is a contradiction: Abaye holds that a shifcha doesn't go free when she becomes a bogeres through aylonus (late physical maturity at age twenty), yet we know that when an aylonis turns twenty, she retroactively becomes a gedolah from age twelve. If she's retroactively a gedolah from twelve, how could the father have sold her at all? The entire sale should be invalid (mecher taus), since the father has no rights over a gedolah. The Gemara (גמרא) presents a kal vachomer from Mar bar Rav Ashi: if simanim (signs of maturity) at the normal age of naris (twelve) takes a girl out of the reshus of the adon, then certainly bagrus (becoming a bogeres) should take her out, since bagrus removes her from the father's reshus while simanim does not. Yet Abaye holds she doesn't go free with bagrus in the case of aylonus. What is Abaye's reasoning?
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.
