No community start suggestion yet.
What makes matana al menas lehachzir invalid for kiddushin and pidyon haben but valid for terumah? The shiur argues that the problem is not lack of value but lack of true nesina—when something must be returned, the recipient is merely "holding" rather than receiving. By terumah, where only nesina is required (not transfer of value), matana al menas lehachzir works.
The shiur opens with the Gemara (גמרא)'s presentation of matana al menas lehachzir (a gift given on condition that it be returned). Rava states that such a gift is invalid for mechira (sale), kiddushin, and pidyon haben, yet valid for terumah. The Gemara initially thought this indicates that matana al menas lehachzir is considered "lo shemo matana" (not a proper gift), but then asks: if so, why should it work for terumah? The Gemara concludes that it is actually "shemo matana" and works for all cases except where there's a separate issue like the prohibition of kohen mesayei'a bei sagronos (a kohen working in the granary to obtain terumah). Rabbi Zweig raises the Kesef Mishneh's question: the Rambam (רמב"ם) rules (Hilchos Bikkurim 11:8) that pidyon haben with matana al menas lehachzir is invalid, yet omits the Gemara's reasoning that this resembles mesayei'a bei sagronos. Why doesn't the same logic that validates terumah also validate pidyon haben?
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.
