A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What does it mean when a man says "harei at mekudeshes li chatzi" (you are betrothed to me by half)? Is he crazy, or is he revealing the true nature of his commitment? The shiur develops the view that "chatzi ish" expresses the emotional reality that marriage competes with other commitments—career, learning, or even another wife—and explores how different kiddushin formulations (kesef, shtar, bi'ah) create fundamentally different mechanisms of relationship.
The shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא) in Kiddushin 6b concerning the statement "harei at mekudeshes li chatzi" (you are betrothed to me by half). The Gemara states that if a man says to a woman, "Half of you is betrothed to me," she is not betrothed, because the verse says "ish" (a man) takes "isha" (a woman), not half a woman. Similarly, if he says "chatzi ish" (half of me is betrothed to you), she is also not betrothed. Rashi (רש"י) explains that the problem with "chatzi isha" is that the man is leaving something over—he is not taking all of her, and therefore cannot marry her because he is leaving room for someone else. This raises a difficulty: the Rambam (רמב"ם) (Hilchos Ishus) first states that if someone says "chatzi mekudeshes li," it is invalid because he is leaving over room for someone else. But immediately afterward, the Rambam discusses a case where two people are mekadesh her at once—which seems worse than merely leaving over room. If the problem is leaving over room, how much more so when someone else actually takes that other half?
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 6b
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.
