A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
How do you assess a person's value when obligated to pay damages or redeem them from hekdesh? The shiur develops the view that a person's value is not merely market price, but what they're worth to themselves—whatever an eved kanani could do, the person owns that ability themselves. The Rambam (רמב"ם)'s difficult ruling on nezek when there's no market loss is explained through the concept that trauma can prevent someone from utilizing their intrinsic value.
This shiur continues from a previous day's discussion on the complex topic of how the Torah (תורה) assesses a person's value, particularly in the context of damages (nezek) and redemption from hekdesh. The fundamental question is whether a person is valued like an eved ivri (Jewish slave) or an eved kanani (Canaanite slave). Rashi (רש"י) in one place says eved ivri, while the Rosh says eved kanani, yet Rashi himself appears to say eved kanani in the sugya of Megillah 23b regarding erchin (valuations). The shiur introduces a fundamental principle: just as money has intrinsic use-value in the marketplace (people pay to borrow money because money enables commerce), even though one cannot charge interest, so too a person owns their own labor-value. Whatever an eved kanani could be sold for on the market represents real productive capacity. A free person cannot be sold, but they possess that same capacity themselves—they own their own value without needing to enter the marketplace. This is why the din is eved kanani: the market price reflects the objective value of human labor and service, which every person inherently possesses.
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!
Megillah 23b
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.
