No community start suggestion yet.
When a father gifts property to his son with the condition "after my death," who owns what? The shiur analyzes the fundamental machlokes between Rav Yochanan and Reish Lakish over whether kinyan peiros (usufruct) equals kinyan haguf (ownership of the corpus). This dispute determines whether the son can sell the property now and what happens if he predeceases his father.
This shiur presents a deep analysis of a fundamental dispute in Yevamos 36b regarding the nature of property ownership when divided between kinyan haguf (ownership of the physical property) and kinyan peiros (rights to the fruits/use). The context is a father who gives property to his son with the stipulation that full ownership takes effect only after the father's death. During the father's lifetime, the father retains the peiros while the son has a claim to the guf. The Gemara (גמרא) presents a machlokes between Rav Yochanan and Reish Lakish. According to Rav Yochanan, kinyan peiros is like kinyan haguf—whoever controls the use effectively controls the ownership. According to Reish Lakish, kinyan peiros is NOT like kinyan haguf—the corpus can be dealt with as a separate, transferable entity independent of who enjoys the fruits.
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!
Yevamos 36b
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.
