No community start suggestion yet.
Can one be mekadesh a woman by forgiving a loan or extending payment time? Rashi (רש"י) holds one is mekadesh with the service (what someone would pay for), not the subjective hana'ah. The Rambam (רמב"ם) rejects this entirely: only actual kesef creates kiddushin. The shiur explores whether the borrower's own mechila counts as "service" and whether such an arrangement is binding.
This shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Kiddushin 6b dealing with whether a creditor can be mekadesh a woman by forgiving a loan or extending the time for repayment. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses several scenarios: forgiving a loan entirely (mechilah), extending the payment deadline (harbakas zman), and the question of whether either constitutes ribis (usury). Rashi (רש"י)'s position, as understood by the shiur, is that one cannot be mekadesh with hana'ah (subjective benefit) but only with a service that has objective value. When Rashi discusses "hana'os mechilah," he means the pruta that someone would pay another person to accomplish the same result—convincing the creditor to forgive or extend. This is a service, not mere hana'ah. The shiur emphasizes that Rashi holds the woman can even pay the creditor directly (not just a third party) for this service, as long as it is not considered ribis.
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.
