A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does matana al menas l'hachzir work for acquiring land but not for kiddushin? The shiur develops the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s fundamental distinction: land acquisition requires only a ma'aseh kinyan, while kiddushin demands an actual exchange—the woman gives herself in return for value received. Even fulfilling the condition doesn't help when no genuine exchange occurred.
This shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Kiddushin 6b regarding matana al menas l'hachzir (a gift given on condition that it be returned) and why it operates differently across various areas of halacha (הלכה). Rabbi Zweig focuses primarily on understanding the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s approach to this mechanism and how it differs from Rashi (רש"י)'s reading. The Gemara (גמרא) establishes that matana al menas l'hachzir works in certain contexts—terumah, pidyon haben, and mekach u'memkar (land sales)—but fails in kiddushin. The shiur's central question is: why doesn't it work for kiddushin, especially since the woman could be koneh the money by stealing it (if she doesn't return it)?
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.
