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.
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.
