No community start suggestion yet.
Can a man marry half a woman? The Raavad and Gemara (גמרא) reveal that kiddushin has two dimensions: kinyan (ownership) and ishus (relationship). The woman becomes fully meyuchad to her husband, but he remains only an owner—explaining why "chatzi ish" (half a man) poses no problem, while "chatzi isha" (half a woman) invalidates the marriage unless she's not yet a person, like an unborn child.
This shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Kiddushin 7a regarding the concept of "chatzi isha" (half a woman) in the context of kiddushin. The central question revolves around the Raavad's position that if someone says explicitly "chatzi isha mekudeshes li" (half of you is betrothed to me), the kiddushin is valid, which seems to contradict the Gemara (גמרא)'s implication that such explicit language would invalidate the kiddushin. The Rashba asks a fundamental question on the Raavad: if there's a principle of "ish v'lo chatzi ish" (a man but not half a man) that excludes a half-slave, half-free man from certain laws, why shouldn't the same principle of "isha v'lo chatzi isha" (a woman but not half a woman) exclude a half-slave, half-free woman from kiddushin? The shiur also addresses R' Shlomo Eiger's question: the Rambam (רמב"ם) rules that one cannot acquire only the fetus of a pregnant maidservant (because it's like acquiring "chatzi eved"), yet the same Rambam permits betrothing an unborn fetus—why isn't that considered "chatzi isha"?
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 7a
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.
