A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can one be mekadesh a woman with a loan, particularly when ribbis (interest) is involved? Rashi (רש"י) holds that even though one is forbidden to pay or collect ribbis, an obligation is nevertheless created—a fundamental chiddush that money has inherent value independent of legal enforceability. The shiur explores how this applies to hana'as milvah and the difference between changing loan terms versus simply not collecting.
The shiur analyzes Kiddushin 6b's discussion of whether one can be mekadesh (betroth) a woman through a milvah (loan) or hana'as milvah (benefit of a loan). The Gemara (גמרא) establishes that one cannot be mekadesh with a milvah because "milvah l'hotza'ah nitna"—a loan is given to be spent, so there is nothing tangible at the moment of kiddushin. The more complex case involves hana'as milvah with ribbis (interest). Rabbi Zweig focuses on Rashi (רש"י)'s remarkable approach to the case where someone lends four zuzim and stipulates the borrower must repay five, using the fifth zuz as kiddushin. The simple reading would suggest this cannot create kiddushin because ribbis is forbidden—one cannot legally obligate oneself to pay interest, and the lender cannot collect it. Therefore, there should be no fifth zuz to create kiddushin with.
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.
