A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
The Gemara (גמרא) distinguishes between kinyan shanim (six-year contract) and kinyan olam (perpetual servitude until Yovel), asking why the Torah (תורה) writes two verses for an eved ivri. A sharp question emerges: how can a father sell his daughter as an amah ivria for six years when he only owns her rights until she turns twenty (bagrus), potentially just two years away?
The shiur analyzes Kiddushin 4a, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s distinction between kinyan shanim (a six-year employment contract) and kinyan olam (perpetual ownership until Yovel). The Gemara initially suggests that "yotzeh chinam" refers to kinyan shanim (six years), while "ein kesef" refers to kinyan olam. The question arises: why does the Torah (תורה) need two separate verses when one could be derived from the other through the principle of bazeh v'limud al zeh (learning one case from another)? Rashi (רש"י) clarifies that even an eved nirtzah, who serves until Yovel (kinyan olam), is not owned as guf hakoneh like an eved Canani—the master does not own his body. This raises a fundamental question: what exactly is the difference between kinyan shanim and kinyan olam? The shiur explores whether the distinction lies in duration (six years versus until Yovel) or in the nature of the kinyan itself. The discussion suggests that kinyan shanim is essentially a contractual arrangement—a long-term work agreement—while kinyan olam represents ownership of the person's labor forever, even though not ownership of the person himself.
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.
