A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why can't a woman be mekudeshes with matana al menas lehachzir (a gift given on condition it be returned)? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction between two types of conditions: those on the object itself versus those on the legal consequence (kiddushin, mechira). The Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position reveals that by kiddushin, the woman must receive value for which she would exchange herself—not merely own an object—making this principle parallel to kinyan chalifin.
This shiur provides a deep analysis of the Gemara (גמרא) in Kiddushin 6b discussing matana al manas lehachzir (a gift given on condition to return it) and its validity for various legal purposes. The Gemara states that such a gift cannot effect kiddushin, pidyon haben, or mechira (sale to create terumah obligation), but disagrees whether it works for terumah itself. The shiur begins by identifying a fundamental question: what exactly is matana al manas lehachzir? There are two possible understandings: (1) The condition is on the ownership itself—if you don't return it, you're a gazlan (thief); or (2) The condition is external to the ownership—you own the object, but if you don't return it, the legal consequence (kiddushin, mechira, etc.) is nullified while you owe the monetary value.
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.
