A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can a matana al menas lehachzir (conditional gift that must be returned) create a valid kinyan? The Gemara (גמרא)'s two questions reveal that matana al menas lehachzir can work for nesina (like terumah) but not for kinyan kesef. The shiur develops that at the moment of use, before the obligation to return arises, true ownership exists—sufficient for esrog but inadequate for field acquisition where the returned object cannot simultaneously serve as payment.
This shiur presents a fundamental analysis of matana al menas lehachzir (a gift given on condition that it be returned) in Kiddushin 6b, focusing on whether such a conditional transfer creates valid ownership. The Gemara (גמרא) presents two questions regarding Rava's position, and Rabbi Zweig demonstrates how the structure of these questions reveals the underlying mechanics of the issue. The central problem begins with the Gemara asking two separate questions about matana al menas lehachzir. First, there appears to be an internal contradiction—if such a gift doesn't work for kiddushin, pidyon haben, and land acquisition, how can it work for terumah? Second, Rava's statement about esrog seems to contradict the conclusion here. Rabbi Zweig questions why the Gemara needs both questions when the maskana (conclusion) is already known, suggesting this redundancy points to a deeper understanding.
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.
