Q&A: Partial Betrothal and the Rabbi’s Lectures…
Partial Betrothal and the Rabbi’s Lectures…
Question
Hello and blessings,
I wanted to ask a few things:
A. In the Talmud in Kiddushin 7a, Rava says that if someone betroths a woman partially, it is ineffective, but if a man betroths partially, it is effective. Abaye challenges this, and Rava seems to say to him: yes indeed, that is not what I meant; rather, regarding a man one can say such a thing, but regarding a woman one cannot, etc. (Rashba and Raavad disagree there about how to understand Rava’s words). But in any case, Abaye understood in a certain way that Rava was speaking about partial betrothal of a woman, and I ask myself: what was the initial assumption for saying such a thing? How could one think in terms of partially betrothing a woman? It sounds completely baffling.00
B. Are there recorded lectures by the Rabbi on tractates? I have only seen source sheets. I’d be glad to know if there are. Thank you.0
Answer
I didn’t understand what is baffling about it. Betrothal of a woman is a formal halakhic act, and I do not see any principled obstacle to applying it partially to a woman’s betrothal. Two people can jointly own one slave (as partners), and if one of them frees him, then he is half-slave and half-free. That does not mean they will run a household and marital life. Those are already human situations, not formal halakhic situations.
There are no recorded consecutive lectures on tractates (there are written lectures on the site). Recorded lectures appear on the site under the tab Lectures – Audio or Video.
Discussion on Answer
There is an undefined half. Even in a partnership over a field, you can ask which half of the field belongs to each one, and there is no answer to that.
If so, then I don’t understand what the initial assumption was and what the conclusion is. In the initial assumption we were talking about a situation where something belongs to two people, and in the conclusion that is also what Rava said…
Thanks for the answers, by the way.
You yourself explained that according to Rava, it is only about leaving over part of the betrothal, whereas according to Abaye it is about dividing the woman herself (into undefined parts). By the way, the comparison to her leg that comes up also hints that we are talking about dividing the woman herself.
I don’t see a difference. After all, the whole meaning of dividing the woman herself into undefined parts is presumably that one part would be betrothed and another part would not—and that itself is leaving over part of the betrothal, no? I’d be glad if you could explain at greater length so I can understand the distinction.
And if the parts were defined, would you see a distinction? The implication would still be that someone else could betroth her.
Undefined parts means that half of the woman is betrothed to one man and half of her to another, exactly like a division into defined parts. But each one’s half is not a defined half (rather, it may depend on the law of retroactive clarification, as in the division of partners). In contrast, according to Rava, we are not talking about dividing the woman herself, but about betrothal rights for two people in relation to her.
In dividing a partnership too, there are the two possibilities that are usually presented: an undefined half of the field for each one (which depends on the law of retroactive clarification), or a division of the rights and not of the field itself (and that does not depend on retroactive clarification). By the way, the possibility that there is partnership in every single grain is a third possibility, and not necessarily like the second.
Thank you very much.
First of all, I’ll say it’s a shame there aren’t recorded lectures on tractates; that’s really something one would expect, and we’d be happy if there were.
As for the discussion itself, from the conclusion it comes out that Rava meant to say that when a man betroths a woman “partially,” his intent is that he will be able to marry another woman, and he does not literally mean half. But regarding a woman, one cannot say that his intent is to betroth only half of her, because a woman is not fit for two men. But that is according to the conclusion.
However, Abaye understood that Rava meant an actual half. And that is unclear to me—which actual half are we talking about? It sounds funny to divide a body in half and start discussing it. It’s like discussing on which side the sanctity would take effect—half across the width or half along the length.
Thank you.