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.
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.
