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.
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.
