No community start suggestion yet.
Can a man be mekadesh a woman by forgiving her debt? The Gemara (גמרא) distinguishes between forgiving the entire loan (invalid) and hana'as mechilas milvah (valid). Rashi (רש"י) interprets this as payment for a *service*—the effort to negotiate forgiveness—not the benefit of debt relief itself, while the Rambam (רמב"ם) requires the extension be offered at the moment of the loan with actual monetary transfer.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental dispute between Rashi (רש"י) and the Rambam (רמב"ם) regarding kiddushin through loan forgiveness on Kiddushin 6b. The Gemara (גמרא) establishes that while forgiving a loan outright (mechilah) does not create valid kiddushin, "hana'as mechilas milvah" does. The challenge is understanding what exactly constitutes hana'as mechilas milvah and why it differs from simple mechilah. Rabbi Zweig presents Rashi's sophisticated reading: Rashi holds that one cannot be mekadesh with the actual benefit of having a debt removed, because that is "lav midi yav"—it doesn't constitute giving the woman anything tangible at the moment of kiddushin. Removing a future obligation is merely preventing a future chesed (חסד) (loss), not transferring present value. Instead, Rashi interprets hana'as mechilas milvah as payment for a *service*—specifically, the pruta one would have paid either to the creditor himself or to a third party (sheyifaseni alkach) to negotiate or facilitate debt forgiveness. This is comparable to rekod lefanai (dancing) or other services with market value.
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.
