A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When a man betroths a woman with two half-perutahs (or two full perutahs), is the kiddushin valid? The shiur analyzes Rashi (רש"י) vs. Tosafot Ri HaZaken's reading of whether mone v'holech creates a unified woman or just combines the money, explains why the Rambam (רמב"ם) reverses the Gemara (גמרא)'s order, and explores the Raavad's challenge.
This shiur on Kiddushin 7a tackles the Gemara (גמרא)'s analysis of whether kiddushin is valid when performed with incremental payments. The Gemara presents three cases: betrothing with two half-perutahs, with two full perutahs on the same day, and with two full perutahs on different days. In each case, the question is whether we apply the principle of "mone v'holech" (counting progressively) to validate the kiddushin. The shiur presents a fundamental dispute between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafot Ri HaZaken regarding how to understand the Gemara's question and answer. According to Rashi, everyone agrees that two half-perutahs combine to form a complete perutah from a monetary perspective—half a perutah is simply nothing, not kesef at all. The Gemara's question is whether the woman herself is subject to mone v'holech. If we say she is not, then the man has performed two separate acts of kiddushin on two "halves" of the woman (chatzi isha), which is invalid because "ein isha miskadeshes l'chatzon" (a woman cannot be betrothed in halves). The Gemara's conclusion (im tim tzulomer) is that mone v'holech applies to the woman as well, meaning the end result is one complete perutah on one complete woman.
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.
