A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
How does an amah ivriyah (maidservant) leave her master's authority when she reaches bagrus (physical maturity)? The shiur analyzes competing interpretations in the Gemara (גמרא) about whether the yetziah mechanism depends on the expiration of the father's sale rights or a fundamental change in the girl herself. Rashi (רש"י)'s reading that the father can sell a potential aylonus until age twenty introduces a profound chiddush about mechira.
The shiur analyzes Kiddushin 4a, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of when an amah ivriyah (Jewish maidservant) goes free from her master's authority. The primary question involves understanding the relationship between two pasukim that discuss yetziah: one for naarah (pre-pubescent signs) and one for bagrus (full maturity). The Gemara explores whether these are two separate dinim or overlapping halachos. Rabbi Zweig begins with a fundamental difficulty: if the Torah (תורה) only mentioned one pasuk, what would we have assumed? The Gemara suggests that we would take the smaller chiddush—that only a kinyan shnayim (limited ownership) prevents eating terumah, while a kinyan olam (perpetual ownership) would allow it. However, this presents a safek where normally we should be machmir. How can the Gemara suggest that on a safek, the amah would be permitted to eat terumah?
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.
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.
