A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can a man betroth a woman by extending the repayment period of her loan? The Gemara (גמרא) on Kiddushin 6b presents a case where he's "marbe'ach zman"—extending time on a debt. The shiur develops the fundamental disagreement between Rashi (רש"י) and the Rambam (רמב"ם) over what constitutes a valid "giving" in kiddushin—does the man need to actually transfer value from his possession, or is the woman's subjective benefit sufficient?
This shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Kiddushin 6b regarding the mechanism of betrothal when a man extends the repayment period of a woman's loan. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses whether such an extension (harvachas zman) can serve as the mechanism of kiddushin, and whether this constitutes ribbis (interest). The Rambam (רמב"ם) rules that if someone lends a woman money for sixty days and then extends the period by another thirty days without demanding repayment, he can betroth her with this extension. The Ran explains that the Rambam understands "harvachas zman" as occurring during the middle of the loan period, not after it expires. The Rambam holds this is valid because there must be something transferred "b'shas kiddushin" (at the moment of betrothal). While the Rambam generally holds "hilchos mechon memker, mevas koinah," mashkenen (pledging) by kiddushin is a separate halacha (הלכה) requiring actual transfer at the moment of kiddushin.
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.
