No community start suggestion yet.
Why is 'chatzi ish' (half a man) valid for kiddushin while 'chatzi isha' (half a woman) is not? The shiur develops a distinction between two types of partial ownership: owning half the physical entity versus owning the full entity with limited usage rights. This fundamental difference explains how the roles of koneh (acquirer) versus hefetz (object acquired) create different halachic dynamics in kiddushin.
This shiur provides an intensive analysis of Kiddushin 7a, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of partial kiddushin (betrothal). The central issue is understanding why the halacha (הלכה) treats 'chatzi isha' (half a woman) differently from 'chatzi ish' (half a man) in matters of kiddushin. The Gemara establishes that when a man says 'you are mekudeshes to half of me,' this is valid kiddushin, but when someone attempts to be mekadesh only half of a woman, it is invalid. Rashi (רש"י)'s interpretation is examined in detail, particularly his explanation that a woman cannot have two husbands (lo chazia l'trei), while a man can have multiple wives. This fundamental difference creates the halachic distinction. Rabbi Zweig explores whether this is based on a specific pasuk or logical reasoning (svara).
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.
