No community start suggestion yet.
Can a man marry half a woman for half a pruta? The Gemara (גמרא)'s principle of hispashtus (spreading) suggests this should work, yet the sugya rejects it. The shiur analyzes Rashi (רש"י), Tosafot, and the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s positions on whether chatzi isha represents a quantitative or qualitative split in the kinyan-isha relationship, and explains why shetei chetziyot (two halves) is worse than mona v'holech (counting progressively).
This intensive Gemara (גמרא) shiur analyzes Kiddushin 7b, focusing on the sugya of chatzi isha (half a woman) and the principle of hispashtus (spreading). The shiur opens by examining the Gemara's case of one who attempts to be mekadesh half a woman with half a pruta and the other half with another half pruta. The core question is: if the Gemara established that chatzi isha could theoretically work through hispashtus—whereby the initial half-kiddushin would spread to encompass the whole woman—why doesn't that same principle apply in these cases? Rabbi Zweig carefully distinguishes between Rashi (רש"י)'s and Tosafot's understandings of mona v'holech (counting as one goes). According to Rashi, mona v'holech means the person is simply counting out the money in increments but intends the whole woman from the outset—it is a single unified transaction for the entire woman, not a half-and-half acquisition. Tosafot, on the other hand, understands mona v'holech as genuinely acquiring half with the first half-pruta and half with the second half-pruta, but these two halves join together as a single process. The shiur then addresses the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s ruling that shetei chetziyot be'pruta (two halves for one pruta) is a sofek (doubt) while chatzi pruta v'chatzi pruta is vadai mekudeshes (certainly betrothed). This is perplexing: shetei chetziyot should be better because both halves are acquired with a full pruta rather than each with half a pruta.
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.