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 due date of a loan she owes him? The Gemara (גמרא) raises the problem of *milvah lo nitna* — the money already belongs to her, so nothing is being given. Rashi (רש"י) and the Rambam (רמב"ם) disagree fundamentally on how to understand *hana'ah* versus *service*, and the Raavad introduces the critical condition that the money must be physically in her hand.
The shiur analyzes a difficult sugya in Kiddushin 6b concerning betrothal through the extension of a loan. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses a case where a man lent money to a woman and, when the loan comes due, he extends the repayment period and declares that she is betrothed to him with the value she receives from this extension. The fundamental problem is *milvah lo nitna* — the money is already hers, so extending the due date does not constitute giving her anything new. The Rambam (רמב"ם) in Hilchos Ishus holds that this type of kiddushin does not work because one cannot betroth with pure *hana'ah* (benefit). The Rambam maintains that betrothal requires an actual transfer of value, and mere benefit from forgiveness or extension of debt does not qualify. This appears to contradict other Gemaras that allow betrothal through *hana'ah*, such as when a man says he will speak to the authorities on her behalf or dance at her wedding.
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.
