No community start suggestion yet.
When money is given "al menas lehachzir" (on condition to return), does it work for kiddushin or sale without a tenai kaful? The shiur develops that even without tenai kaful, the recipient remains obligated to return the money, though the kinyan itself remains valid. This creates a fundamental distinction between the obligation to return and the reversal of the kinyan.
This shiur analyzes Kiddushin 6b, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of "matan al menas lehachzir" (giving with the expectation of return) and its relationship to the laws of tenai kaful (double-sided condition). The central issue is whether kiddushin, sale, or fulfillment of mitzvos can be effectuated when money or an object is given with the expectation that it will be returned. The shiur begins by examining Tosafos (תוספות)' question: why doesn't the Gemara immediately ask that there is no tenai kaful in the case of the esrog? A tenai kaful requires explicit statement of both outcomes: "if such-and-such happens, then X; if not, then not-X." Here, there is only a one-sided condition. Tosafos answers that by esrog it's so clear (umdenah de-muchach) that the giver only wants to be yotzei the mitzvah (מצוה) and get it back, that you don't need a formal tenai kaful. The shiur questions whether this logic extends to other cases like kiddushin or mecher.
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.
