No community start suggestion yet.
Can a mashkan (collateral) create a shibud (obligation) when no underlying debt exists? The Ramban (רמב"ן) holds that acquiring the mashkan simultaneously creates the obligation, while Rav maintains this is impossible since mashkan can only secure existing debts. The analysis explores whether this reflects different understandings of kinyan or the fundamental nature of nesina in kiddushin.
This shiur examines a core machloket between the Ramban (רמב"ן) and Rav concerning the Gemara (גמרא)'s statement 'manay ikan mashkan ikan' - if there's no money, there's no mashkan. The Ramban holds that even when saying 'when you acquire this mashkan, I want to obligate myself to give you a manah,' she becomes mekudeshes through the shibud (obligation). He argues that when one acquires the mashkan, they also acquire the shibud, as the mashkan works to create the obligation. The Rav fundamentally disagrees, maintaining that a mashkan cannot work to be koneh a shibud (acquire an obligation). According to the Rav, since the person receiving the mashkan gets no actual rights in the mashkan when no underlying debt exists, the mashkan is ineffective - it's merely words ('mili b'alma'). A mashkan can only secure an existing loan, not create one.
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-7a
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.
