A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What constitutes real ownership in matana al menas lehachzir (a gift given on condition it be returned)? The Gemara (גמרא)'s proof from terumah challenges whether temporary ownership suffices for kinyan kesef in kiddushin. The Rambam (רמב"ם)'s formulation—listing shorter durations first, then longer—and his apparent shift from kinyan kesef to kinyan chalipin raise fundamental questions about the nature of acquisition when the recipient must return the object.
The shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא)'s principle that matana al menas lehachzir (a gift given on condition of return) is considered a valid matana (gift), examining its application to kiddushin and other kinyanim. The discussion opens with the Gemara in Kiddushin 6b and related sources in Nedarim 40, where the Gemara establishes that for a gift to be valid, the recipient must have the right to be mochel (forgive/waive) it. The Rishonim ask: by matana al menas lehachzir, the recipient cannot be mochel since he is obligated to return it, yet the Gemara validates such gifts—why? Three major Rishonim answer that in the Nedarim case, the gift was merely a sham to circumvent the neder, whereas matana al menas lehachzir involves genuine transfer of ownership despite the return condition. The Ri offers a different approach: the recipient does have something to be mochel—namely, the value or benefit he derives from the object (such as being yotzei the mitzvah (מצוה) of lulav), even though he cannot keep the object itself.
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.
