A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can a gift given conditionally (matana al menas lehachzir) serve as a valid kinyan for kiddushin, acquiring a field, or paying off debts like pidyon haben? The Gemara (גמרא) (Kiddushin 6b) presents Rav Ashi's position that it works in all cases because it is a valid matana, yet questions persist: Does the recipient truly "own" something he must immediately return, and how can such conditional ownership constitute real payment or transfer of value?
This shiur analyzes a fundamental sugya on Kiddushin 6b concerning matana al menas lehachzir—a gift given with the explicit condition that it be returned. The central question is whether such conditional ownership can constitute a valid kinyan (act of acquisition) across different halachic contexts: marriage (kiddushin), purchasing land (mekach u'memkar), pidyon haben (redemption of the firstborn), and terumah. Rabbi Zweig begins by outlining Rav's position that when someone gives a maneh (a sum of money) al menas lehachzir, various kinyanim fail: the buyer does not acquire property (mecher lo kanah), a woman is not betrothed (isha eino mekudeshes), and pidyon haben is invalid (pidyon haben eino padui). Only in the case of terumah does it work (biterumah yotze yedei chovaso), though there is a separate issur involved (lav kamina she'nir be'kohen hamasiach bebeis hagaron).
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.
