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.
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.
