No community start suggestion yet.
When you give a matana al menas lehachzir, does ownership revert automatically or must the recipient actively transfer it back? The shiur analyzes the fundamental machlokes between the Rosh and the Tosafos (תוספות), exploring whether Reb Yeshua could give Reb Gamaliel's esrog to Reb Akiva and both be yotzei. The Avnei Miluim's position and the kasha from giving to a katan are examined in depth.
This shiur offers a comprehensive analysis of the sugya in Kiddushin 6b dealing with matana al menas lehachzir (a conditional gift that must be returned). The fundamental question revolves around the nature of such a transfer: does the recipient acquire full ownership and then must actively transfer it back as a new matana, or does ownership automatically revert to the original owner after the designated period? Rabbi Zweig begins by examining the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of an esrog given al manas shetachziru li. The case involves Reb Gamaliel who gave an esrog to Reb Yeshua, who used it and then gave it to Reb Akiva, who used it and returned it to Reb Gamaliel. The Gemara asks how this worked—specifically, how could Reb Yeshua and Reb Akiva both be yotzei the mitzvah (מצוה) if Reb Yeshua never returned the esrog directly to Reb Gamaliel?
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.
