No community start suggestion yet.
Can a father sell his daughter beyond the time he actually owns her? The Gemara (גמרא) analyzes Abaye's position that without a special pasuk, an aylonus (a girl who doesn't develop signs of maturity) would remain an amah for six years even past age twelve and a half. The shiur explores the Ramban (רמב"ן) and Riva's debate over whether gadlus itself or only physical maturity (simanim) ends the father's right to sell.
This shiur examines a fundamental question in Kiddushin 4a regarding the sale of a Hebrew maidservant (amah ivriyah). The Gemara (גמרא) presents Abaye's position that without the pasuk of "yotzei chinam ein kesef," an aylonus (a girl who doesn't develop normal signs of maturity at age twelve) would remain an amah for the full six years of her sale, even though she becomes a gedolah retroactively at age twenty. Rabbi Zweig begins by raising a critical difficulty: According to Rav's opinion in Yevamos that an aylonus becomes a gedolah retroactively (limafrei'a) at age twenty, she would already have been a gedolah from age twelve and a half. Since a father has no rights over a bogeress (as Mar bar Rav Ashi states explicitly), how could the father sell her for six years when he only owns her for two and a half years? The Gemara's assumption that without the pasuk she would work until sixteen seems to contradict both the retroactive nature of gadlus and the father's lack of rights over a bogeress.
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.
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.
