A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What kind of ownership is created by a gift given on condition to return? The Gemara (גמרא) on Kiddushin 6b lists cases where matana al menas lehachzir works — mechira, kiddushin, pidyon haben, terumah — yet seems to permit all or forbid all. Rabbi Zweig develops a fundamental chakira: "ownership" sufficient to avoid being a she'elah may still lack the power to generate a reciprocal kinyan obligation, like transferring a field or acquiring a wife.
The shiur analyzes a fundamental question in hilchos kinyanim arising from the Gemara (גמרא) in Kiddushin 6b regarding matana al menas lehachzir — a gift given on condition that it be returned. The Gemara presents a series of cases: mechira (sale), kiddushin (betrothal), pidyon haben (redemption of the firstborn), and matnas kehuna (gifts to Kohanim). The central question is whether such a conditional gift is considered a valid matana (gift) or merely a she'elah (loan). Rava's position appears to be that matana al menas lehachzir is considered shemo matana — a valid gift. However, the Gemara's language is perplexing. The Gemara asks: "meimonasho" — if matana al menas lehachzir is shemo matana, then all these cases should work; if it's not shemo matana, none should work. Yet the Gemara later distinguishes between these cases, particularly regarding whether it's assur lassos ken (forbidden to do so).
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.
