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.
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.
