No community start suggestion yet.
Can one pruta effect two half-marriages, creating one whole kiddushin through mona v'holech? The shiur distinguishes three cases: half-pruta for half, whole pruta used twice for each half, and one pruta for two halves simultaneously. The third case may not be mona v'holech at all—it's acquiring two distinct halves, not joining them into one whole.
This shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא) in Kiddushin 7b on the concept of mona v'holech—a progressive acquisition that joins separate acts into one complete kinyan. The fundamental question is whether kiddushin can be accomplished through incremental steps that together equal a full pruta's worth. The Gemara presents three cases. First: giving half a pruta for half the woman, then another half-pruta for the other half. This is the clearest case of mona v'holech—each individual half-pruta is worthless, so the person is clearly describing an incomplete process that requires completion. Second: giving one whole pruta but saying it should acquire half the woman, then saying the same pruta should acquire the other half. Here one pruta is being used for two separate kinyanim. Third: "shnei chatzayich b'pruta"—one pruta to acquire two halves of the woman simultaneously.
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.
