No community start suggestion yet.
Why doesn't a conditional gift (matanah al menas lehachzir) create a valid kinyan for transactions like kiddushin or pidyon haben? The shiur develops the foundational principle that the obligation to return the object is not merely a side condition from hilchos tana'im, but rather the essential exchange itself—you owe the object back because that was the stipulated "price." Since you never truly own what you must return, it cannot serve as a medium of kinyan.
This shiur explores the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion in Kiddushin 6b regarding matanah al menas lehachzir—a gift given on condition that it be returned. The central question is why such a conditional gift cannot be used to effect a kinyan in contexts like kiddushin (marriage), pidyon haben (redemption of the firstborn), or even as a means of acquiring land. Rabbi Zweig begins by examining the Gemara's question: if Rava stated that matanah al menas lehachzir is not considered a valid matanah (gift), why does the Gemara need to ask this question from multiple contexts? The difficulty is compounded by the fact that the Gemara brings a proof from the case of terumah, which seems to have different dynamics than standard kinyan cases.
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.
