A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Torah (תורה) say "when a man sells his daughter as an amah" without specifying to whom? The sale of an amah ivris creates a status—a challas amah—rather than transferring ownership. This explains why she exits with simanim (puberty signs) even when the master's contractual term hasn't ended, and why the kal v'chomer for misas ha'av (father's death) specifically uses simanim rather than shesh (six years).
Rabbi Zweig analyzes the formulation of the pasuk "ki yimkor ish es bito l'amah" (when a man sells his daughter as an amah), which notably omits specifying to whom the daughter is sold. This seemingly incomplete formulation points to a fundamental conceptual distinction between the sale of an amah ivris and ordinary ownership transfer. The shiur develops a foundational yesod: the sale of an amah ivris does not constitute a transfer of the father's ownership rights to the master. Instead, the act of sale itself creates a new status—it places a challas amah (the status of being an amah) upon the daughter. The father is not selling his ownership of his daughter's labor to another party; rather, he is exercising his authority to change her halachic status to that of an amah ivris. This is parallel to marriage (kiddushin), where the father can marry off his daughter even beyond the age when his direct ownership ends (age 12.5), because marriage is not a transfer of ownership but the creation of a new status (challas eishes ish).
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 14b-18a (laws of amah ivris)
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.
