A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
If a man says "half of me is marrying you," is the kiddushin valid? The Gemara (גמרא) distinguishes between chatzi ish (half a man) and chatzi isha (half a woman). The shiur develops the Rashba's approach that chatzi isha is invalid because it creates an inferior quality of marriage (meshar bekinyan), while chatzi ish can be valid as a quantitative division—regular marriage affecting only half the man—allowing him to marry someone else.
This in-depth shiur analyzes Kiddushin 7a, exploring the Gemara (גמרא)'s distinction between "chatzi ish" (half a man) and "chatzi isha" (half a woman) in the context of kiddushin. The fundamental question is: what happens when a man attempts to consecrate a woman using language of "half"? The Gemara presents a machlokes between Abaye and Rava. Abaye holds there is a pasuk that teaches "ish v'lo chatzi ish" and "isha v'lo chatzi isha"—the act of kiddushin itself must involve a complete man and complete woman. Rava disagrees, arguing that the pasuk doesn't address the ma'aseh kiddushin (the act of acquisition), but rather the chalos (the resulting legal status)—the end result must be a complete marriage between a full ish and isha.
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.
