No community start suggestion yet.
What does it mean when a man says "chetzi mekudeshes li" — half the woman should be betrothed to me? The shiur explores whether this creates a kinyan (ownership relationship) without ishus (marital relationship), or whether it's impossible to separate the two components of kiddushin. Multiple Rishonim debate whether chetzi ish is valid and what it means for kiddushin to create both ownership and issur.
This shiur analyzes Kiddushin 7a, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of "chetzi isha" — what happens when a man attempts to be mekadesh only half a woman, or when a woman is mekudeshes to half a man. The fundamental question is what such language means and why the Gemara needs a pasuk to invalidate it. The Gemara presents a basic asymmetry: when a man says "chetzi mekudeshes li" (you are betrothed to me as half), she is mekudeshes because we interpret his intent as leaving room to marry another woman (dibuy nesiv nachrin). But when a woman is betrothed "l'chatzi ish" (to half a man), it is invalid because a woman cannot be married to two men (etzlabei trei lo chazi). The shiur asks: what is the man actually trying to say? If he's crazy and speaking nonsense, why would you need a pasuk to invalidate it? The statement must have some intelligent meaning.
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.
When an animal damages crops, the Torah prescribes a unique payment formula based on multiplying the damaged area by sixty. Does this formula redefine the actual loss, or does it merely create a payment mechanism that still acknowledges the full damage sustained? The Gemara explores whether someone who ate in doubt should pay the higher-quality amount, examining how the principle of motzi me-chaveiro alav haraya applies when payments fall within the range of actual loss.
What makes testimony valid when different witnesses testify to different parts of the same event? The Gemara debates whether the principle of "davar v'lo chatzi davar" (complete testimony, not partial) disqualifies witnesses who testify separately to theft and slaughter. Rashi's approach reveals that the issue is not merely combining elements, but whether each witness's statement is independently meaningful.
Why is a ganav who sells a stolen animal on Shabbos exempt from the fourfold/fivefold payment? The shiur analyzes whether this exemption stems from kam lei b'derabbah or from the absence of a valid mechira. The Rashba's principle that matana resembles mechira when it is "nishtarish b'chet" is explored, along with the Rambam's position on hekdesh and the distinction between giving to bedek habayis versus mizbe'ach.
When a ganav shechts a stolen animal l'avodah zarah, why isn't he patur from payment since it's already isur hana'ah? The shiur explores the fundamental machloket Rashi-Tosafot on whether the isur derives from the act of shechita or from the din shechita itself. The Gemara's application of davar garem be'mamon ke'mamon domi extends the analysis to when borrowed animals become niskal.
