No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא) rule that kiddushin with "shnei chatzayich b'pruta" (half and half with a pruta) is no good? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: when one says "half and half" he wants two kinyanim (ownership rights) rather than a complete marital relationship, unlike "mona b'holech" where the halves progress to a whole. This explains the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s ruling and reconciles apparent contradictions in Tosafot.
This shiur analyzes Kiddushin 7b, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of kiddushin with divided intentions—specifically the case of "shnei chatzayich b'pruta" (half of you with this half-pruta, half of you with that half-pruta). The fundamental question is why this case should be invalid when it appears to be better than other cases that are valid. The Gemara presents several scenarios: (1) chatzi b'chatsi pruta v'chatzi b'chatsi pruta (half with half-pruta, repeated); (2) chatzi b'pruta v'chatzi b'pruta; (3) chatzi hayom v'chatzi machar (half today, half tomorrow); and (4) shnei chatzayich b'pruta. The Rambam (רמב"ם) rules that the first two cases are vadai kiddushin (certain betrothal), while the last case is only safek kiddushin (doubtful). This ruling raises serious difficulties: if saying the kiddushin should happen in two halves at different times can work (through the principle of "mona b'holech"—counting progressively), why should saying both halves together with one pruta be worse?
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 7b
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.
