A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can a man marry half a woman now and half later? The Gemara (גמרא) analyzes whether partial kiddushin creates hispas (expansion to full marriage), whether a woman can be partially betrothed, and what the man intends when he says "chatzi hayom chatzi l'machar." The conclusion: ein ishah miskadeshes el chatzi—half an ishah is nothing, yet the precise logic remains elusive.
This shiur analyzes a difficult sugya in Kiddushin 7b concerning the concept of hispas (expansion or completion) when a man attempts to marry a woman in two halves—half now and half later. The central question is whether such partial kiddushin has any validity or creates any binding status. Rabbi Zweig begins by presenting the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion in Tamid concerning whether hispas works by an oath. The Gemara is uncertain whether an oath can undergo hispas, and this uncertainty extends to kiddushin. The Rashba explains that the reason there is no hispas by a woman is because the woman does not want to be married in halves—she either wants to be fully married or not at all. Yet if she says "shenichtech b'prutah" (you have betrothed me for a prutah), she clearly wants to give herself entirely. This creates a fundamental difficulty: if she wants to be fully married, why isn't she mekudeshes?
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.
