A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When does a gift "on condition to return it" (matana al manas lehachzir) create valid kiddushin, sale, or pidyon haben? The Gemara (גמרא)'s difficulty is resolved by distinguishing between a condition on the *giving itself* (making it gezel if not returned) versus a condition on the *resulting status* (kiddushin, sale, etc.). The Rambam (רמב"ם) innovates that kiddushin uniquely requires not just ownership but exchange-value—something the woman would trade herself for—which matana al manas lehachzir cannot provide even when the condition is external.
The shiur analyzes a complex Gemara (גמרא) in Kiddushin 6b concerning the principle of matana al manas lehachzir (a gift given on condition that it be returned). The Gemara presents four cases: kiddushin (betrothal), sale of land, pidyon haben (redemption of firstborn), and terumah/maaser. In the first three cases, the Gemara rules that matana al manas lehachzir does not work (lo yatza), while for terumah it does work (yatza). The Gemara asks: if we hold that matana al manas lehachzir is considered a valid gift (shemo matana), it should work in all four cases; if we hold it is not a valid gift (lo shemo matana), it should fail in all four cases. What accounts for the distinction? Rabbi Zweig begins by noting that the Rishonim struggle with this Gemara. The question seems to confuse two separate issues: (1) whether the recipient owns the object, and (2) whether that ownership is sufficient to create a reciprocal obligation—to be koneh (acquire) a field through kinyan kesef, to be mekadesh oneself to a husband, or to redeem a child through pidyon haben. In the case of terumah, we are only asking whether the person owns the terumah; there is no second-level question of reciprocal obligation. But in the cases of kiddushin, sale, and pidyon haben, there are two dimensions: does the person own the money, and does that ownership create enough of a "monetary obligation" (memoni gachach) to effect the transfer or redemption in return?
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.
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.
