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.
When an animal damages crops, the Torah prescribes a unique payment formula based on multiplying the damaged area by sixty. Does this formula redefine the actual loss, or does it merely create a payment mechanism that still acknowledges the full damage sustained? The Gemara explores whether someone who ate in doubt should pay the higher-quality amount, examining how the principle of motzi me-chaveiro alav haraya applies when payments fall within the range of actual loss.
What makes testimony valid when different witnesses testify to different parts of the same event? The Gemara debates whether the principle of "davar v'lo chatzi davar" (complete testimony, not partial) disqualifies witnesses who testify separately to theft and slaughter. Rashi's approach reveals that the issue is not merely combining elements, but whether each witness's statement is independently meaningful.
Why is a ganav who sells a stolen animal on Shabbos exempt from the fourfold/fivefold payment? The shiur analyzes whether this exemption stems from kam lei b'derabbah or from the absence of a valid mechira. The Rashba's principle that matana resembles mechira when it is "nishtarish b'chet" is explored, along with the Rambam's position on hekdesh and the distinction between giving to bedek habayis versus mizbe'ach.
When a ganav shechts a stolen animal l'avodah zarah, why isn't he patur from payment since it's already isur hana'ah? The shiur explores the fundamental machloket Rashi-Tosafot on whether the isur derives from the act of shechita or from the din shechita itself. The Gemara's application of davar garem be'mamon ke'mamon domi extends the analysis to when borrowed animals become niskal.
