A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Does matana al manas lehachzir (a gift given on condition it be returned) count as a valid gift? The Gemara (גמרא) compares four cases: kiddushin, sale, pidyon haben, and terumah. The shiur develops a fundamental distinction—is the condition placed on the giving of the object itself, or on an external consequence like the kiddushin? This chakira reshapes how we understand ownership, reciprocal obligation, and the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s cryptic formulation.
The Gemara (גמרא) on Kiddushin 6b presents a famous difficulty: if matana al manas lehachzir (a gift given on condition it be returned) is not considered a valid gift, why does it work for terumah and esrog but not for kiddushin, sale, or pidyon haben? The shiur begins by analyzing the apparent contradiction—either it should work in all four cases or in none. The Rishonim struggle with the prerequisite that any valid matana must be something the recipient can be makdish (consecrate). The Gemara in another context states that anything one cannot consecrate is not a valid gift. The standard answer is that this Gemara refers to a sham gift, not a genuine limitation on matana. The Raavad offers an alternative: even in matana al manas lehachzir, the recipient can consecrate the temporary use (hishtamshus) of the object, which represents real value. But this creates a difficulty—if the recipient has real value that can be transferred to hekdesh, how can we maintain that matana al manas lehachzir is "lo shmo matana"?
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.
