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.
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.
