A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא) debate whether freeing a slave is a zechus (benefit) or chov (liability)? The shiur analyzes the dispute between Rav Meir and the Chachamim, focusing on the Eved Kohen case where the slave loses terumah rights. The resolution distinguishes between zechus gamur requiring only absence of objection versus mixed zechus/chov requiring affirmative consent for shlichus.
The shiur opens with a fundamental question about two seemingly separate disputes in the Gemara (גמרא). First, there is the debate whether freeing a slave is inherently a zechus or a chov—the basic disagreement between Rav Meir and the Chachamim. Second, in the case of an Eved Kohen, there arises a separate question: even if freedom is generally a zechus, doesn't the slave lose his ability to eat terumah (which is sold at discount), creating a new chov? The Chachamim answer that this chov can be eliminated because the master can sell the slave to a Yisrael. Rav Meir appears not to accept this logic. This raises the question: are there truly two independent machlokot here, and if so, why? Rabbi Zweig develops the analysis through several key sources. Tosfot in Kesubos states that according to Rav Meir, an Eved Katan of a Kohen experiences no chov from losing terumah because Rav Meir holds the svara (logic) that "you can sell him" applies. Yet in our sugya, Rav Meir explicitly rejects the Chachamim's answer of selling. This appears to be a direct contradiction. The Rambam (רמב"ם) in his Peirush HaMishnayos offers a completely different rationale: he says terumah is not a maalah (elevated status) in the eved at all—it is merely the Kohen's prerogative to dispose of his terumah through his eved, just as he feeds it to his animal. Therefore, losing terumah rights is not a chov. This explanation diverges from the Gemara's reasoning and also fails to address the practical financial loss (the "discount card" issue raised by Tosfot)—an eved of a Kohen buys terumah wholesale; a free man pays retail.
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!
Gittin 12b-13a
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.
