No community start suggestion yet.
Can a gift conditional on return (matanah al menas lehachzir) create kedusha or kedushin on only half an item? The Gemara (גמרא) compares sanctifying half an animal (regel shezu olah) to betrothing half a woman (chatzi isha). Two approaches emerge: Rambam (רמב"ם) holds there's no fundamental prohibition against chatzi isha—only that kedushin spreads by necessity—while Rashi (רש"י) holds chatzi isha is fundamentally invalid, requiring the maimar itself to expand (hispashtus dibur).
This shiur examines Kiddushin 7a and the principle of hispashtus (spreading out) in both kedusha (sanctity) and kedushin (betrothal). The central question is whether kedusha or kedushin can take effect on half an item, and if so, how it extends to the whole. The Gemara (גמרא) opens with a difficulty: can you sanctify half an animal (regel shezu olah—"this leg is an olah offering")? By kedusha, such a statement seems to work—the kedusha spreads from the starting point (the leg) to the entire animal. But by kedushin, the Gemara states that you cannot betroth "chatzi isha" (half a woman)—either because "isha ve'lo chatzi isha" (the Torah (תורה) requires a whole woman) or because "itzbei trei lo chazia" (she cannot be available to two men). If chatzi isha doesn't work at all, how can we say the kedusha "spreads out" (venifshetu kedusha bekula)?
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.
