A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What makes a gift given on condition to return it valid or invalid? The shiur distinguishes between placing the condition on the *transfer itself* (making non-return theft) versus on the *kiddushin* or transaction (where the recipient owns the object but the ritual act fails). This chakira explains why the Rambam (רמב"ם) says a woman who doesn't return the money "lo niskayma tanai" yet still received nothing—the tanai cancels the kiddushin, not the ownership.
This shiur on Kiddushin 6b develops a fundamental distinction in understanding matana al menas lehachzir (a gift given on condition to return it) that resolves multiple difficulties in the Gemara (גמרא) and Rambam (רמב"ם). The central question is whether such a conditional gift is considered a valid matana (gift) for purposes of kiddushin, mechira (sale), pidyon haben, and terumah. The Gemara presents four cases: kiddushin, mechira, pidyon haben, and terumah. In the first three, the question is whether matana al menas lehachzir creates sufficient ownership to generate a reciprocal obligation—for the woman to be mekudeshes, for the seller to transfer the field, or for the kohen to redeem the child. The Gemara initially suggests these should fail if we hold matana al menas lehachzir lo shmo matana. However, terumah seems different—there the question is simply whether the kohen owns the terumah, not whether it creates any reciprocal obligation.
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.
