No community start suggestion yet.
Why can't a man marry half a woman (chatzi isha), yet the Gemara (גמרא) permits a woman to be married to three men simultaneously? The shiur develops the yesod that marriage requires full ownership, not because a partial kinyan is insufficient, but because a woman cannot be a partner with her husband—she must be fully owned. The fundamental contradiction is between the husband and the wife's self-ownership, not between multiple husbands.
This shiur analyzes Kiddushin 7a-b, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s principle of "ish v'lo chatzi ish"—a man cannot marry half a woman. Rabbi Zweig opens by exploring what "chatzi isha" (half a woman) actually means: does it refer to partial kinyan (ownership), partial marriage rights, or something else entirely? The central difficulty emerges from an apparent contradiction. On daf 7, the Gemara establishes that chatzi isha is invalid—one cannot marry half a woman. Yet on daf 50 (samech), the Gemara discusses a case where three men give kiddushin to the same woman at staggered intervals (one for thirty days, one for twenty days, one for ten days). The Gemara concludes she is mekudeshes to all three and requires a get from each. How can the same woman be married to three men if chatzi isha is fundamentally problematic?
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.
When an animal damages crops, the Torah prescribes a unique payment formula based on multiplying the damaged area by sixty. Does this formula redefine the actual loss, or does it merely create a payment mechanism that still acknowledges the full damage sustained? The Gemara explores whether someone who ate in doubt should pay the higher-quality amount, examining how the principle of motzi me-chaveiro alav haraya applies when payments fall within the range of actual loss.
What makes testimony valid when different witnesses testify to different parts of the same event? The Gemara debates whether the principle of "davar v'lo chatzi davar" (complete testimony, not partial) disqualifies witnesses who testify separately to theft and slaughter. Rashi's approach reveals that the issue is not merely combining elements, but whether each witness's statement is independently meaningful.
Why is a ganav who sells a stolen animal on Shabbos exempt from the fourfold/fivefold payment? The shiur analyzes whether this exemption stems from kam lei b'derabbah or from the absence of a valid mechira. The Rashba's principle that matana resembles mechira when it is "nishtarish b'chet" is explored, along with the Rambam's position on hekdesh and the distinction between giving to bedek habayis versus mizbe'ach.
When a ganav shechts a stolen animal l'avodah zarah, why isn't he patur from payment since it's already isur hana'ah? The shiur explores the fundamental machloket Rashi-Tosafot on whether the isur derives from the act of shechita or from the din shechita itself. The Gemara's application of davar garem be'mamon ke'mamon domi extends the analysis to when borrowed animals become niskal.
