No community start suggestion yet.
Can a man betroth a woman by giving half a pruta for half of her and another half for the other half? The shiur analyzes the fundamental dispute between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafot Rid on Kiddushin 7b: does the problem lie in splitting the woman or splitting the money? The Gemara (גמרא)'s cryptic cases test whether simultaneous or sequential half-betrothal can work.
This shiur provides a detailed analysis of Kiddushin 7b, examining a fundamental question in hilchos kiddushin: can a man betroth a woman by dividing either the woman or the money into halves? The Gemara (גמרא) presents several cases where a man attempts kiddushin using the language of "half and half," and the shiur explores how Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafot Rid understand these cases completely differently. According to Rashi, the core issue is whether the man intends to split the woman into halves. The phrase "chatzi b'chatzi pruta v'chatzi b'chatzi pruta" (half for half a pruta and half for half a pruta) could mean two things: either he's literally trying to betroth half the woman with half a pruta and the other half with another half pruta (which would be invalid because you cannot betroth half a woman), or he's merely counting out the money while intending to betroth the entire woman with a complete pruta. Rashi holds that if he's just counting the money but intending one complete act of kiddushin, it works. The problem only arises if he truly means to create partial kiddushin.
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.
