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.
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.
