Q&A: Betrothal in Halves
Betrothal in Halves
Question
Hello and blessings to the Rabbi, I have a question about a passage that I’m currently learning in tractate Kiddushin.
There’s a concept here that hasn’t been made sufficiently clear to me.
When Rava raised all the doubts there and the Talmud concluded with teiku, regarding betrothal that can be interpreted as partial betrothal (like: “half of you today and your other half tomorrow”).
My question is: what does “in halves” mean at all? What does that even mean?
How does it find expression? Does this even have some Platonic idea behind it?!
Or is it just a linguistic failure? That when he says to her “half of you,” since he didn’t say “all of you,” it’s just a verbal mistake.
(I would have said that if I hadn’t understood from Rashi, “that he mistakenly thought that a woman can be betrothed in halves,” meaning that he intended partial betrothal.)
Answer
I didn’t understand the question. He wants to betroth half a woman. What isn’t clear?
Discussion on Answer
Again, I don’t understand the difficulty. He wants only half of her to be betrothed to him. That’s all. That doesn’t mean there is such a person, or that such betrothal is reasonable and makes sense. The Talmud discusses a question that may be hypothetical: what is the law in the case of a person who wants to betroth only half a woman?
Thank you very much, Rabbi. In principle, that’s what I wanted to understand.
Why do you think there is no question here at all? How does one acquire something by halves—either it’s yours and the rights are yours and not someone else’s, or you have no rights in it. And also, what does “half” mean—half a body? Lengthwise or widthwise?
Yes, exactly—Esh sharpened the point of my question. But simply speaking, it’s hypothetical, so there’s no need to delve too deeply.
He simply made a mistake in his wording [or in his thinking].
Just as there is a person who is half slave and half free, so too there could be a woman who is half married and half single. Presumably (based on another article by the Rabbi), two legal statuses reside side by side together, and an ambiguity is created that gives rise to certain laws.
One can suggest several different explanations for this: two legal statuses, or a division of the body, or of the soul. What I wrote is that I don’t see a difficulty here, because there are several possible explanations. The question of which of them is correct—I don’t know. But that’s a question, not an objection.
I want to understand whether betrothing “half a woman” isn’t nonsense.
(By the way, this is on 7b.)
What does that even mean? The case there is one where he is able to betroth all of her (he gives her more than a perutah), and nevertheless he chooses to split the betrothal. I’m trying to understand whether such a hypothetical person actually intends something, or whether it’s just a problem in wording.
Maybe I’m still not being clear; if so, sorry about that. It’s just a passage that I don’t understand 100%.