No community start suggestion yet.
What does "hiskatsi li l'chetsi" (marry me to half of you) mean? The Gemara (גמרא) debates whether kiddushin requires the woman to be fully designated (miyuchad) for one man, or if the husband is merely acquiring her like an object. The Rambam (רמב"ם) holds there is a real din of chatzi ish—a woman can be designated to "half a man"—teaching that who the man is matters for the kiddushin itself.
This shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Kiddushin 7a, focusing on the seemingly bizarre statement "hiskatsi li l'chetsi" (marry me to half of you). Rabbi Zweig explores two fundamentally different approaches to understanding both the question and the answer in the Gemara (גמרא), which reflect a profound debate about the nature of kiddushin itself. The basic question is: what does it mean when someone says "hiskatsi li l'chetsi"—half of me wants to marry you? At first glance, this appears nonsensical. The Gemara explains it means "I want to marry someone else" (ibo nisavina achrit v'nisavina). But this explanation raises a deeper problem: since in kiddushin the man is koneh (acquires) the woman and she is not koneh to him, what difference does it make if he wants to marry someone else? When acquiring property, half of you can acquire the whole thing—the identity of the buyer is irrelevant. So why should it matter here?
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.
