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.
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.
