A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What happens when a matana al menas l'hachzir is given without tanai kaful? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: tanai kaful is only needed to retroactively undo ownership, but the obligation to return the gift remains independently—as a debt, not a condition of ownership. This yesod resolves Tosafos (תוספות)' question on the Gemara (גמרא)'s case of mechel lo kanah.
This shiur develops a fundamental understanding of how matana al menas l'hachzir (a gift given on condition that it be returned) operates when the giver fails to make a proper tanai kaful (double-phrased condition). The Gemara (גמרא) discusses whether an esrog given as matana al menas l'hachzir without tanai kaful allows the recipient to fulfill the mitzvah (מצוה), with the Tosefta holding mechel lo kanah—that if the recipient doesn't return it, he was never yotzei. The central question raised is: Why didn't Tosafos (תוספות) immediately ask on the Gemara's case of mechel lo kanah that if no tanai kaful was made, the gift should be valid even without return? The normal rule is that without tanai kaful, a condition cannot retroactively undo an action (lo asei dibur me'vateil ma'aseh). The shiur distinguishes between two separate issues in any conditional transaction: (1) whether the ma'aseh (the gift itself) remains valid, and (2) whether there is an independent obligation to fulfill the condition.
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.
