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.
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.
