A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why doesn't kiddushin spread from half the woman to the whole, as hekdesh spreads from half an animal to the entire animal? The shiur examines the Gemara (גמרא)'s answer—da'as acheret blocks hispashtus—and explores the machlokes Rishonim: Tosafos (תוספות) limits the din to the lashon "mekudeshes," while others (Rashba, Rivash) apply it broadly. The analysis distinguishes two chiddushim in the pasuk: the Torah (תורה)'s rejection of partial hekdesh, and the mechanism of hispashtus when intention conflicts with effect.
The Gemara (גמרא) on Kiddushin 7b asks why kiddushin should not spread throughout the entire woman when a man attempts to be mekadesh only half of her, parallel to the principle of hispashtus by hekdesh: if one designates half an animal as an olah, the entire animal becomes kodesh. The Gemara answers that by hekdesh the owner has full control over his animal, whereas by kiddushin the woman's da'as is required—and her da'as prevents the kiddushin from spreading beyond what she consented to. Tosafos (תוספות) and the Ran challenge this answer: if we ignore the man's limited intention (he wanted only half) and extend the kiddushin based on hispashtus, why should we not likewise ignore her limited intention and extend it from her perspective as well? Both wanted half; why should hispashtus work from his side but not hers?
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 7b
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.
