No community start suggestion yet.
Why can't kiddushin spread from half to the whole woman when kodesh spreads from part to whole in a korban? The shiur analyzes three approaches to das acheres ma'akiv: Tosafos (תוספות) (she doesn't want), Rashba (she participates in creating the hispashtus), and Rambam (רמב"ם) (passive acceptance differs from active action). Each mehalech fundamentally redefines the mechanics of kiddushin and hispashtus.
This shiur presents an in-depth analysis of Kiddushin 7a-b, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s question of why kiddushin does not spread through hispashtus (expansion) when a man attempts to marry only half a woman (chatzi isha). The fundamental question is: if kedusha spreads from a partial designation to the whole animal in hilchos korbanos (when one designates a foot as an olah, the entire animal becomes kodesh), why doesn't the same principle apply to kiddushin? The shiur begins by establishing two foundational approaches to understanding chatzi isha from the Rivash and Rambam (רמב"ם). According to the Rivash's approach, chatzi isha means the man wants hilchos kinyanim without the full chalos of ishus—he wants to acquire her as property without complete marital status. By the man it's only kinyanim, so chatzi works; by the woman it involves both kinyanim and ishus, creating a problem. The Gemara's challenge is: let the kedusha spread to complete kiddushin through hispashtus.
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-b
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.
