No community start suggestion yet.
Why doesn't kedushah spread from half a woman to make the entire kiddushin valid, as it does with korbanot? The Gemara (גמרא) explains that daas acheres - the woman's consent - blocks the spreading since she only agreed to partial kiddushin. The shiur develops a fundamental chakira: is hispachdus an inherent property of kedushah itself, or a din in hilchos amira about how we interpret partial declarations?
The shiur explores a fundamental Gemara (גמרא) in Kiddushin 7a addressing the principle of hispachdus (spreading) in matters of kedushah. The Gemara establishes that when one attempts to sanctify half a woman (chatzi isha), it is not a valid kiddushin. The question arises: why doesn't the kedushah spread to encompass the entire woman, similar to the halacha (הלכה) by korbanot where designating part of an animal as an olah causes the kedushah to spread to the entire animal? The Gemara's answer focuses on the concept of daas acheres - there is another party (the woman) whose consent matters. Unlike a behemah which belongs entirely to its owner, by kiddushin there are two parties involved, and since the woman doesn't want the kedushah to spread beyond what she agreed to, the spreading cannot occur.
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.
