A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why can't kiddushin work with a loan (milva) when the lender forgives the debt? The shiur develops a fundamental understanding of kinyan kesef: it requires giving something that creates an obligation to return. Forgiving a debt (marvia chari) provides tremendous benefit, but removes a problem rather than giving something—therefore it cannot serve as kesef for kiddushin unless one explicitly hires the debtor to secure the forgiveness.
This shiur on Kiddushin 6b examines a series of challenging contradictions in Rashi (רש"י) concerning kiddushin with a loan (milva). The Gemara (גמרא) presents two statements: Rav says that if one is mekadesh with a milva, she is not mekudeshes; Abaye similarly rules that mekadesh bemilva ein mikudeshes. The apparent redundancy raises the question of what chiddush Abaye is adding beyond Rav's statement. Rabbi Zweig analyzes several textual difficulties in Rashi. On this daf, Rashi explains that when being mekadesh with a milva, the money already belongs to the woman (milva lo hitzon nitna—a loan is given to be spent). But on daf 47a, Rashi says it is only "like hers" (kidalah). Additionally, Rashi in Bava Metzia states that even when holding milva lo hitzon nitna, if the actual money is still around and the borrower returns it, certain halachic consequences follow—suggesting the money retains some connection to the lender despite being considered "given" to the borrower.
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.
