A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Does a gift given on condition to return it count as valid acquisition? The Gemara (גמרא) on Kiddushin 6b distinguishes between conditions placed on the transfer itself versus conditions on the resulting legal status (kiddushin, sale, pidyon haben). The Rambam (רמב"ם)'s seemingly contradictory position is resolved by showing that when the condition affects only the status (not the transfer), the recipient owns the object but owes its value—yet for kiddushin this still fails because a woman won't exchange herself for something yielding no benefit.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental Gemara (גמרא) on Kiddushin 6b dealing with matana al manas lehachzir (a gift given on condition to return it) and its application to kiddushin, mekach umemkar (sales), pidyon haben (redemption of the firstborn), and terumah. The Gemara presents four cases: the first three (kiddushin, sales, pidyon haben) are invalid (lo yotza), while terumah is valid (yotza). The Gemara questions this distinction: if you hold matana al manas lehachzir shmo matana (it is a valid gift), all four should work; if lo shmo matana (it is not a valid gift), none should work. Rabbi Zweig identifies a fundamental difficulty with the Gemara's comparison. In the first three cases, the issue is whether the monetary transfer creates sufficient ownership to obligate the recipient to transfer something back (the woman to be mekadesh herself, the seller to transfer land, the kohen to redeem the child). In terumah, the only question is whether the recipient owns the terumah itself—there is no reciprocal obligation involved. These are fundamentally different questions, making the Gemara's parallel problematic.
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.
