No community start suggestion yet.
Why is a woman not mekudeshes when given money on condition she return it? The shiur develops a chiddush in the Rambam (רמב"ם): the condition applies to the kiddushin itself, not to the money. Unlike a standard matana al menas le'hachzir (where ownership of the object is conditional), here the kiddushin is conditional—she receives the money but the marriage only takes effect if she returns it.
This shiur analyzes Kiddushin 6b's discussion of matana al menas le'hachzir (a gift given on condition of return) in the context of kiddushin. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses a case where a man gives a woman money for kiddushin stipulating that she must return it. Rabbi Zweig explores fundamental questions about the nature of such conditional transactions. The shiur begins by addressing Tosafos (תוספות)'s question: why didn't the Gemara immediately invoke the principle of tnai kaful (double condition)? The Minchas Chinuch suggests it must not be a tnai kaful here. Rabbi Zweig develops this to mean that when someone gives an object "al menas le'hachzir," it becomes fully the recipient's property, but with an obligation to return it—similar to a debt. If the recipient doesn't return it, they owe the value, but the object itself remains theirs.
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.
