A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Torah (תורה) need two pesukim—toshav and sochir—to exclude an eved from eating trumah? The shiur examines Rashi (רש"י)'s reading that one refers to an eved nirtza (kinyan olam) and the other to an eved sold for six years (kinyan shana), and asks why Rashi doesn't instead distinguish between mechiras bezdin and mechiras atzmo. The discussion introduces fundamental questions about ownership, guardianship, and the nature of kinyan.
This shiur addresses a series of fundamental questions on Kiddushin 4a concerning the sugyah of toshav v'sochir and the prohibition against an eved eating trumah. The Gemara (גמרא) presents the principle of bozeh v'limed al zeh: when two pesukim appear to teach the same din, each must teach a distinct case. Here, the Torah (תורה) says both "toshav" and "sochir" of a Kohen may not eat trumah. If only one were written, we might have thought it referred to the lesser chiddush (kinyan shana—a six-year sale). The second pasuk teaches that even kinyan olam (perpetual ownership, i.e., the eved nirtza) does not permit eating trumah. Rabbi Zweig opens with a fundamental kasha on Rashi (רש"י): Why does Rashi frame the two cases as (1) eved sold for six years and (2) eved nirtza? There are other possible distinctions. For instance, why not distinguish between an eved sold by beis din (mechiras bezdin) and one who sells himself voluntarily (mechiras atzmo)? Or between a six-year contract and a lifelong contract (mechiras olam)? Rashi specifically invokes the category of nirtza—the eved who chooses to remain after six years by having his ear pierced—but the Gemara could have drawn other lines. What compels Rashi to choose nirtza as the paradigm of kinyan olam?
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.
