A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What is the scope of hispashtus (spreading) when consecrating a woman or an animal? The shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא)'s principle that hispashtus applies only to consecrating a woman (where the entire body becomes consecrated), but not to sanctifying an animal for a korban. The discussion explores the machlokes between different approaches regarding when hispashtus applies and the fundamental distinction between kedushas haguf and kedushas damim.
This shiur presents an in-depth analysis of Kiddushin 7a-b, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of hispashtus—the principle that consecration spreads to encompass the entire entity. The shiur begins by examining the Mishna's ruling that when one consecrates a woman, hispashtus applies and the entire woman becomes consecrated. However, when consecrating an animal for a korban, the Gemara states there is no hispashtus; only the specific part designated becomes sanctified. The Gemara brings a Baraisa that derives from the verse "kol asher yitein mimenu LaHashem yehiyeh kodesh" that the principle of "mimenu v'lo kulo" (from it but not all of it) limits hispashtus with korbanot. The verse teaches that if someone consecrates part of an animal, only that part becomes holy, not the entire animal. This stands in contrast to kiddushin of a woman, where the entire body becomes consecrated through the act of betrothal.
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-b
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.
