A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What constitutes valid hana'ah (benefit) for marriage acquisition when the groom extends a loan's due date? The shiur analyzes the fundamental dispute between Rashi (רש"י) and the Rambam (רמב"ם) over whether one can be mekadesh through ma'avir zman (time extension), exploring two distinct conceptions of benefit: direct service versus engineered pleasure. This question bridges the halachos of kiddushin and ribbis.
This shiur on Kiddushin 6b explores a fundamental question in the laws of marriage acquisition (kiddushin): can a woman be mekadesh (married) through the benefit of having a loan's due date extended (ha'arachas zman)? The Gemara (גמרא) presents a case where a woman owes money to a lender, and a man says he will extend her loan in exchange for marriage. The basic question is whether this constitutes valid hana'ah (benefit) sufficient to create kiddushin. The shiur begins by establishing a critical principle in the laws of ribbis (interest): ma'avir charin - when one person pays another's debt without being asked, the debtor does not owe anything in return because no direct benefit was given. The one who paid merely removed an obstacle (the creditor), but didn't give anything tangible. The beneficiary is only a passive recipient. However, if the debtor explicitly asks someone to pay his debt, that creates an obligation, transforming the act from passive benefit to active acquisition of hana'ah.
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 6b
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.
