A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can a woman be betrothed through loan forgiveness? The shiur analyzes the dispute between Rashi (רש"י) and the Rambam (רמב"ם) on hana'as mechilas milva (benefit of loan forgiveness). Rashi views it as payment for services rendered, while the Rambam sees it as inherent benefit from breathing space within the original loan terms. The discussion clarifies when monetary obligations qualify as kesef kiddushin and why harvachas zman (extending time) differs fundamentally from mechila (forgiveness).
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of Kiddushin 6b, focusing on the complex sugya of hana'as mechilas milva (benefit from loan forgiveness) and its application to kiddushin (betrothal). The central question is whether a woman can be betrothed through the benefit she receives when a loan is forgiven or its payment terms are extended. The shiur begins by examining the Ramah's two primary questions on the Rambam (רמב"ם). First, the Ramah argues that if a man lends money and stipulates at the outset that he will extend the payment period in exchange for betrothal, this should constitute ribbis ketzutza (prohibited fixed interest), as he is charging for the time extension. The shiur explores whether a woman herself is considered a "real acquisition" or monetary value in this context. The preliminary answer suggested is that according to some Rishonim, a woman is not a genuine monetary acquisition but rather a kinyan issur (prohibition-based acquisition), which might exempt it from ribbis.
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.
