receives the kiddushin. She could receive it herself, or she could send a shaliach to receive the kiddushin. Then the Mishnah says, האיש מקדש את בתו כשהיא נערה בו ובשלוחו. A man can be mekadesh his daughter. We know a father has the right to take kiddushin for his daughter when she's up to she's a na'arah. That's a ketanah is till 12, then another half a year till It's six months, right? Six months. She's a na'arah, and then she's a bogeret. When she's a bogeret, that's her own. The father can't do it. But till she's a bogeret, the father could do it. בו ובשלוחו the Mishnah says, he could do it himself or he could do it through a shaliach. That's the Mishnah. Comes the Gemara, the Gemara asks: השתא בשלוחו מקדש, בו מיבעיא? If you could do kiddushin, goes on the first part of the Mishnah when the Mishnah says a man himself could take give kiddushin himself or through a shaliach. If he could do it through a shaliach, certainly he could do it himself. So why does the Mishnah have to say he could do it himself? If the Mishnah would say המקדש, האיש מקדש בשלוחו, we would know it's himself. אמר רב יוסף, רב יוסף said, mitzvah bo yoter mi'shelucho. The Mishnah teaches you that it's a bigger mitzvah if you do it yourself than if you do it through a That's why he mentions you. And the Gemara gives example of of amora'im that would do the mitzvah of kavod themselves to prepare for Shabbos. Then the Gemara continues: איכא דאמרי, some say, בהא איסורא נמי איכא. Here there is even an issur. In a regular case of kiddushin, when a man gives kiddushin, not only it's better if he does it himself, there is an issur. He's not allowed to do it through a shaliach. Why?

Because Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav: אסור לאדם שיקדש את האשה עד שיראנה. You're not allowed to be mekadesh a woman unless you see her first. שמא יראה בה דבר מגונה, you might later on, when you marry her, you'll see it's an disgusting thing, put these goggles on, she'll become disgusting to you, והרחמנא אמר, the Torah says, ואהבת לרעך כמוך. So you're not allowed to be mekadesh. So you're telling me that Mishnah says מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו. The Mishnah says בו ובשלוחו to teach you that it's better to do it through a shaliach, mitzvah, no, if you do it through a shaliach, it's an issur. You don't have to see her at that exact moment. But the Mishnah's talking whether you saw her before, or you didn't see her. So then, what Rav Yosef did say that from the Mishnah we know that it's a just a mitzvah to do it yourself better than a shaliach, that goes on the seifa. When it says האשה מתקדשת בה ובשלוחה, a woman could get kiddushin herself or through a shaliach, there we have the same question: השתא בשלוחה מקדשה, בה מיבעיא? If she could do it through a shaliach, she certainly could do it herself. So

why did the Mishnah say בה? So that what Rav Yosef said, from here we learn out: מצוה בה יותר מבשלוחה. It's a bigger mitzvah on her, but it's no issur. And the Gemara says, because for a woman, she'll never She'll always be satisfied, any husband he is. A man if he finds he doesn't see his a woman, and later he sees her, and he doesn't like her, it's a problem. A woman, דאמר ריש לקיש, a famous Reish Lakish saying: טב למיתב טן דו מלמיתב ארמלו. For a woman, she'd rather be with a companion than being alone. Whoever he is. Okay. That's the that's the Gemara. Then the Gemara continues, the next part of the Mishnah it said: האיש מקדש את בתו כשהיא נערה. A man can give kiddushin, take kiddushin, mekadesh his daughter when she's a naarah. פרעגט די Gemara: כשהיא נערה אין, כשהיא קטנה לא? It's only when she's a naarah he could take kiddushin? He could take kiddushin when she's a ketanah, also. So why does it mention נערה? מסייע ליה Rav. This fits to what Rav said, because Rav said: אסור לאדם שיקדש את בתו כשהיא קטנה. It's asur to be מקדש your daughter when she's still a קטנה, עד שתגדל, till she grows older, ותאמר, she'll say, בפלוני אני רוצה, I want this guy. Because otherwise, we're afraid you're going to be מקדש her, and she's young, she doesn't know, later she'll not like him, there'll be the same problem. But therefore, it's no setirah to Reish Lakish because Reish Lakish is talking when you do it yourself, you don't care who it is. But if the father does it, she might be upset. If she's a קטנה. If she's a גדולה, then she she understands herself. So the reason it says in the משנה, האיש מקדש את בתו כשהיא נערה, בו ובשלוחו, as a נערה, is because you shouldn't be מקדש your daughter. It's an issur! The Gemara says the lashon: אסור לאדם שיקדש את בתו כשהיא קטנה. It's asur to be מקדש. This is the Mishnah. Let's look at Rashi.

When it comes in the Mishnah, when the Mishnah says האיש מקדש את בתו כשהיא נערה, so Rashi says like this: וכל שכן כשהיא קטנה. The father could take kiddushin, certainly קטנה. אם קיבל קידושין מקודשת. If he takes kiddushin, she's מקודשת. Then Rashi khapt arayn and tells us already what the Gemara says: והאי דנקט נערה, so why does it say in the Mishnah נערה? אורח ארעא קא משמע לן, it comes to teach you a דרך ארץ, דקטנה לכתחלה לא. So the father could give over, but קטנה לכתחלה you shouldn't. That's how Rashi taytsh the Mishnah, that Rashi quotes in the Mishnah from the Gemara. Which right away we have a problem with Rashi. The Gemara said a לשון אסור לקדש את בתו כשהיא קטנה. The Mishnah allowed to. And Rashi says, אורח ארעא אשמיענן. אורח ארעא means derech eretz, it teaches a derech eretz. It's not the proper thing to do, but it's not an... Rashi's is, it's not an issur. And the Beit Yosef is medayek in Rashi that Rashi holds it's not an issur. But the question is, why would Rashi change from the lashon of the Gemara? If the Gemara says asur, what does Rashi care to say that it's asur? What is, forces Rashi to say that this is not a real issur? That's one side. Maybe it is a real issur, he's giving the reason, the ta'am? No, if, Rashi doesn't say it's asur, he says אורח ארעא, it's derech eretz. אורח ארעא, the word אורח ארעא in Aramish is the same word as derech eretz. אורח ארעא אשמיענן, a derech eretz, he teaches us a derech eretz, that that's the right way to do, but not that that's an issur. Then let's go vayter. When it comes in the Gemara, when it says אסור לקדש עד שתראנה, you can't, it's asur to be mekadesh a woman until you see her, so Rashi says like this: ובהא איסורא נמי איכא, there is an איסור, אם יכול לקדש בעצמו וקידש על ידי שליח, if you did it by yourself, if you could do it by yourself and you do it through a שליח, why? דמצוה שיראנה, it's a mitzvah he should see her, שמא תתגנה עליו, might be disgusting on him. Again, Rashi does the same chachmah here. Instead of saying אסור, he says it's a mitzvah. Mitzvah means like mitzvah bo yoter mi-beshelucho, it's a better thing to do. It's a mitzvah you should see her. From the Gemara you would learn out that it's אסור if you don't see her. And Rashi wrote מצוה שיראנה, it's a mitzvah. So why does Rashi have to change that? If we give a look at the Ran, in one thing he's like Rashi and in one thing not. With regard that you're not allowed to be מקדש a קטנה, which Rashi had said the לשון דרך ארץ, so he says like this. Here. It's ממש the words of Rashi. That when it says נערה, כל שכן קטנה. So, היינו דנקיט נערה, why does he say נערה? אורח ארעא אשמיענן, it comes to teach you דרך ארץ, דקטנה לכתחילה לא, kind of. When it comes to the case of אסור לקדש עד שתראנה, that you can't be מקדש unless you see her, so he says like this: that in the רישא where it says אסור לקדש, טעמא משום איסורא הוא, דכל שיכול לקדש בעצמו, as long as you could קדש yourself, וקידש על ידי שליח, and you did it through a שליח, איסורא קא עביד! You're doing an איסור. שמא תתגנה עליו, might not like her. So the word is שמא, he says the same thing as Rashi, but he changes: Rashi says it's a מצוה שיראנה, and he says אסור if you don't see her. איסורא קא עביד, does he, you know, there's an, it's an עבירה! According to Rashi, even though the Gemara uses the lashon issur, he doesn't say issur, he says it's only מצוה שיראנה, and the Ran says issur. Then we see another difference. Kiddushin is just engagement? Huh? Kiddushin, yeah. But it's not engagement like nowadays which is basically nothing. In those days, I mean, yeah, engagement which makes her into an eishes ish. If you want to get rid of her afterwards, you have to give her a get. Other piece, you could also just take her across the threshold and it's like a... No, but before the kiddushin you have to see her. Before the kiddushin, because that's when you make her... marriage after kiddushin. Right, right, kiddushin is first, then you have to see her. You can't just... No, but it could be he takes her, he buys her, he takes her cross the threshold. No, no, no, that's chuppah. This, kiddushin is you just give her and a shaliach can do it. Chuppah no one else can do, you do it yourself. But a shaliach can do kiddushin, we're talking about kiddushin. Then we

see another difference between Rashi and the Ran. Rashi, when he says, the first part, מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו, it's a bigger mitzvah if you do it yourself, mekadesh yourself than through a shaliach. So Rashi says like this: דכי, listen, listen, here is noge'a the words, דכי עסיק גופיה במצוה מקבל שכר טפי. If your body is involved in the mitzvah, you get more sachar. That's why he says מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו, you should have your body involved in it more than if it's not. The Ran says the same thing, but he changes one word: מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו, if kol, he says, copies רש״י, דכי עסיק הוא עצמו במצוה מקבל שכר טפי. If he himself does the mitzvah, he gets more sachar. Now, superficially, what's the difference? Everyone has his expressions. True! So if I would look in the Ran and it says הוא עצמו, no problem, Rashi. But when you start comparing, and the Ran saw Rashi, and he decides to change, then there is something he is trying to tell us. So Rashi says these words: that why is there a mitzvah to do it yourself more than a shaliach? Because your body should be involved. And he says not, he says you should be involved yourself. It sounds like it's the same thing, but, but why would he change the lashon? So

come to the Rambam, so we have the Rambam like this: we have the Rambam in Perush HaMishnayot, the Rambam here when he explains the Mishnah. So to, since it's not, we don't have so much time, so the Rambam, I'll just read some words, he says, הנכון אצלנו, it's right by us, שיקדש האדם בעצמו יותר משיקדש שלוחו, that a person should to mekadesh himself rather than the shaliach. Why? Because לא ישא אדם עד שיראנה, that a person shouldn't marry a woman unless he sees her, because on the chashash we're afraid אולי תתגנה עליו and he might not like her, ויעמוד if he will stay with her ולא יאהבנה, וזה אסור, ואהבת לרעך כמוך. לפיכך, היטיבו על שלוחו. So here also he says, he doesn't say it's asur. He says הנכון אצלנו, it's the right thing to do. Then when it comes to the other din that you shouldn't be mekadesh a ketanah, listen to what the Rambam says: כשנערה ולא כשקטנה, ואף על פי שיש רשות לאב לקדש את בתו יום אחד, a father could be mekadesh his daughter how small and she'll be an אשת איש, אמנם שמענו, so he shouldn't do it, כי נשואי קטנה הוא דבר מכוער. A marry of a ketanah is is not a nice thing. What do you mean not a nice thing? Asur! Gemara says asur! So we see the Rambam follows here the same things like Rashi, that in both cases he doesn't say asur, he says נכון אצלנו, it's the right, might, right thing to do, not nice to marry off. This is in Perush HaMishnayot, the Rambam who explains the Mishnayot, but let's look at the real origin, the din of Rambam himself. In Hilchot Ishut, פרק ג... Yeah... הלכה י״ט, sorry, yeah. Okay, let's read here: מצוה שיקדש אדם את אשתו בעצמו יותר מעל ידי שלוחו, it's a mitzvah that you should do it yourself. וכן מצוה לאשה שתקדש עצמה בידה! A woman should mekadesh with her hand! More than on the shaliach. So what does the Rambam, did Rambam mention a word that it's asur to be מקדש? No. He says it's only a mitzvah, which is like Rashi. It fits to what he wrote in Peirush HaMishnayot. Then he says right there, ואף על פי שיש רשות לאב לקדש בתו כשהיא קטנה וכשהיא נערה, a father could marry off his קטנה, she's a נערה, whatever he wants, אין ראוי לעשות כן, it's not proper to do that. אלא מצות חכמים, and the Chachamim said he shouldn't be מקדש כשהיא קטנה עד שתגדיל ותאמר לפלוני אני רוצה. So we see the Rambam goes in both cases that it's not asur, like Rashi. Didn't the Mishnah from the beginning say that it's allowed? The Mishnah says it's allowed, that איש מקדש, but the Gemara says that if you can't see her you shouldn't, you should only do it yourself. אי the Mishnah says that you lechatchilah you can make, so Tosafos says לגבי קידושין it's חל. You can do it and she's מקודשת. That means the קידושין can be done, but you are not allowed to do it, there's an issur on a person. And the Rambam doesn't say it, like Rashi. Also, the other diyuk... קידושין בביאה? Yeah? No, there it's an issur, that's a real issur. Derabbanan. We're also talking about derabbanan. Yeah, but there Rashi wouldn't say it's not a, not an issur. There it's an issur. Here Rashi says it's only, it's only אי דרך ארץ, it's a derech eretz. There it's not derech eretz, there it's an issur derabbanan. Then, in the, in the third diyuk that we made in the Rashi, that Rashi says that the לשון is that what, why is it מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו, why is that better? Because your body should be involved, while the Ran says you should do it. The Rambam uses the לשון by the, in one of the cases, שאשה תקדש עצמה בידה! He doesn't say she מקדש herself by herself, בעצמה. He mentions the גוף again, he mentions the יד! As if saying the point is that if you do it with your own hand! So he's מדייק in that for his own hand. So we see the Rambam and Rashi go ממש together in all things. So, what we have to understand is the Rambam שיטה and Rashi שיטה, where did they get this from that it's not an issur when the Mishnah says אסור? If you notice in the Rambam Peirush HaMishnayot, the Peirush HaMishnayot mixed two things. He starts off like this: It's a mitzvah to be מקדש yourself first, not, better than the שליח, because we know that you, it's not nice to be מקדש an אשה if you didn't see her. From the Gemara we see they're two separate things! If you know the woman before, you ever saw her, it's a מצוה... בו יותר מבשלוחו. To מקדש her if you didn't see her, the Mishnah says, is an issur. They're two separate things. The Rambam pushes them all together like one thing in לשון. Okay, I want to go back and read the לשון, then see how it comes out. You knew her or you didn't know her? Huh? For sure you always knew her? Oh, he says if you knew her, it's מצוה בו, and he says why is מצוה בו, now together with מצוה בו he says if you, if you didn't know her, then it's not nice to be מקדש her. But the two, the לישנא, the Gemara says it's two separate things. Then there's another thing here. Also the Ran. The

Ran says, asks a קשיא on the Gemara. The Gemara says מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו. If she takes קידושין, it's a greater mitzvah if she takes it herself than send a שליח. So the Ran comes up with an obvious question: What's her mitzvah? She בכלל has no mitzvah. The whole mitzvah is marriage, פריה ורביה. There's a clear din: האיש מצווה על פריה ורביה. A man has an obligation of פריה ורביה, ואין האשה מצווה על פריה ורביה. She has no mitzvah בכלל. Which means a greater mitzvah if she does it herself? She has no mitzvah בכלל. So the Ran answers that because the husband cannot do his mitzvah without her, she is מסייע, she helps him, she's also considered part of the mitzvah. Comes the Korban Netanel on the Rosh, and he says: I don't understand, why didn't the Ran give another answer? There is another mitzvah which a woman does have about marriage! Besides the mitzvah of פרו ורבו, there's a pasuk, in Tanach, not in a Chumash, in Tanach it says לא לתוהו בראה לשבת יצרה. Hashem didn't create the world to be empty, to... but that it should be populated, it should be inhabited. And that's a mitzvah! And that mitzvah is not only on the man, on the woman. Actually, a goy who doesn't have the mitzvot, there's no mitzvah of פרו ורבו on a goy, but the mitzvah we call it שבת, a goy does have, a woman has. So why couldn't the Ran answer that? You ask: What mitzvah does she have? Okay, פרו ורבו she doesn't have, but she has the mitzvah of שבת! Actually, the Sefer HaMikneh says that's the peshat, he taka says that's the pshat. But the שאלה is why doesn't the Ran learn like that? It's a clear Gemara in Bava Batra and in Gittin that even a goy, an עבד and a goy have the mitzvah of Shabbos, so why doesn't he say here a woman has the mitzvah of Shabbos? The difference, it's not a מצוה דאורייתא, it's a mitzvah from Tanach, has a different title. דאורייתא is called דברי תורה, דרבנן is called דברי סופרים, and this is called דברי קבלה. Statement of the נביאים, it's like a higher level even than the דרבנן, higher level than דברי סופרים, called דברי קבלה. So this is a מצוה מדברי קבלה, but it's a mitzvah, so mitzvah bo yoter mi-bishlucho, it's also... why does the Ran not say that? But a goy is also דברי קבלה? Yeah. Okay, so we've got to answer these all these שאלות now. So, follow-up: goyim are responsible for mitzvot of קבלה and the... If it's something made for the whole world, yeah. It's not a mitzvah for אידן דווקא. By the way, the world is meant for everybody. Yeah, it's meant for everybody. Okay, so now to answer these, explain all this, start off like this:

Let's look at the דין of mitzvah bo yoter mi-bishlucho, and we have a חקירה to think what is the גדר of the mitzvah. Is mitzvah bo yoter mi-bishlucho, the fact that you do it yourself better than to use a שליח, makes the mitzvah better, a mitzvah that's done yourself, it's a better mitzvah? Or the mitzvah is the same, the mitzvah is done, you are doing something better, a darga higher. That means that if you do the mitzvah yourself, you're showing that you want to do the mitzvah. Imagine you send somebody else to do it. What are you showing Hashem? Yeah, yeah, here, go do it. I have to do it, you have to do it, go. So מצוה בשלוחו is only a din on the person, possible. That the person is obligated to do it to show that he likes the mitzvot. The mitzvah itself, there is no difference. There's nafka mina between the two, besides what we'll say later. Where is there a place to show that the mitzvah is different? Is? Is different. No, you mean what the nafka mina would be? Yeah. The nafka mina would be, okay, outside there's a תוספת שבת, not tonight... תוספת שבת? Ha, that's fine, but that's not l'maaseh, that the Eibershter will build... No, but the she'eilah is there's What happens if the reason I'm sending a shaliach is because he could do the mitzvah nicer than me? The she'eilah goes legabei writing a Sefer Torah. Mitzvah, everyone should write a Sefer Torah, but we don't do it, we ask the sofer to do it for us. He's a shaliach. Why are we doing it? It's מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו! Because I don't know how to write. If I'll write, it won't come out good. Do we still say מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו? Depends. If מצוה בשלוחו is a din in the mitzvah, then yeah, even if this means that it's not so nice, you should do it. But if מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו is a din on me, but I'm trying to do the mitzvah better the other way, anyway there's there's a nafka mina here. I don't want to go into this direct... a brit milah, yourself, yeah, all a lot of places where you can find a nafka mina, but I'm just trying to bring out the point bekitzur. Similar to we find in other cases, where we find also the same she'eilah, lemashal, the whole idea of hitna'eh lefanav bamitzvot. There's a pasuk that says זה קלי ואנוהו, this is my God and I will beautify Him, so the גמרא דרשנ׳ס התנאה לפניו במצוות: Make the mitzvot nice. When you write a Sefer Torah, says buy nice parchment and make like etrog, make a get the nicest etrog. You should make the mitzvah nice. This din of

making the mitzvah nice, is a din in the mitzvah or a din in the person? Same she'eilah. If you make it nice, then the mitzvah is better, or no, the mitzvah is the same as long as is done properly halachah is fine. You show the Eibershter, you know, that I'm I'm interested in doing the mitzvot. It's a נוגע להלכה in certain cases, what happens if I make it nice by something outside of the mitzvah? Now I tell you why I'm saying it. I remember once the Rebbe explained by נוי סוכה. The Rebbe explained once why מנהג חב״ד is not to have נוי סוכה. We don't hang up any pictures, we don't do anything. And he said why? Because that's not making the mitzvah nice. You're putting up nice apples. The apples are nice. The mitzvah, if you make the sukkah itself nice, then the sukkah itself is nice, the mitzvah's nice. But if you're putting it up, it's an outside thing. So he says, \"But the question is, how come we find in the Gemara Tannaim and Amoraim, it says all kinds, you could have נוי סוכה?\" So he says, \"They were in a מדרגה, that to them anything that they hung up to the sukkah was not a מציאות for itself, it was because the mitzvah was so important, it has boted part of the sukkah. But to us, it's not like that. When you hang up a picture, the picture is nice, forget about the sukkah.\" And he

gave an example, halachah. There's a halachah that if it's more than 20 amah from the floor of the sukkah to the schach, it's pasul. So, the Gemara gives an עצה. Take straw and hay, put it on the floor, elevate the floor, and now it's less than 20. Then it says, \"Well, you can't put down pillows.\" Why not? The Gemara says why. Because straw and this you're mevatel to the floor. It becomes part of the floor. Pillow, you're not mevatel to the floor. So, we see there's such a thing as being mevatel to the sukkah and not. So, they were mevatel it to the sukkah, by us it's not. But, I want to say this whole ביאור of the רבי only fits it's if it's a din in the mitzvah. If it's a din in the person, then what do you care if it's not part of the mitzvah? The po'el, all it is to show the Oibershter how I'm happy with the mitzvah and I'm, so I'm glorifying the mitzvah. But the fact remains that we hold that it's a din in the mitzvah. That's why we never find We don't find that we have silver מדאיג, bedavka to have a silver case for the for the Megillah, or a silver case for this for the etrog. Lubavitch never had a כתר on the ספר תורה till ת״ש-ל״ד, משיח ספר תורה. Never. There's no מנהג חב״ד is not to have a כתר. We don't have a silver atarah on the tallit. Why? All these things are side things, it's not A tallit, you will have to have The Gemara when it says make mitzvot nice, make a nice tallit. Make the tallit nice. You're going to take something else and put it on the on the tallit? So, Reisner, that's our shittah. But the חקירה is what is the גדר of of התנאה לפניו במצוות? It's a din in the mitzvah or in Then

there's another case of אין עושין מצוות חבילות חבילות, it says you shouldn't dump few mitzvot together. On the same kos, at the same time, you shouldn't make two mitzvot, you shouldn't make ברוך and Havdalah. So, there are in different places Tosafot, say, in Chagigah, what's the reason? In one place it says the reason is that a mitzvah that's all mixed together with mitzvot is not the same. Another place it says that the person by doing that shows the Oibershter that he's trying to bundle them up together so you get them done fast. Now, these two, it's Rashi and Tosafot. And I don't want to go in that, so we can get to Kitzur. So, all this, what's the machloket there? Is it a דין in the mitzvah? And the reason and is the peshat is that this is the problem and the mitzvah should be better? Or the other holds, \"No, it's a דין in the גברא, in the person.\" It's a דין in the person, then what's the reason? That you're showing the Oibershter, so this part The same thing, let's go back to מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו. What is the inyan? Is the דין in the mitzvah, that the mitzvah that's done yourself is better, or the person? I want to say, it's not מוחלט, but I want to say that that's the difference in the lashon whether it says a mitzvah that you do yourself is better or a mitzvah that you do with your body is better. If it's a דין on the on the person, and what how would what how would you express it? Yourself. Do it yourself, don't give it to somebody else. Then you'll do it. Not because it should be on your body, on your hand. It's do it yourself, don't give it to somebody else. So, the Ran says takeh, that a mitzvah that you can do yourself, you have to do yourself. You get more sechar if you do it yourself. If you hold it's a דין in the mitzvah, it's not a word, do it yourself. The mitzvah that's done with your body, that mitzvah is stronger. It's a derech like we say certain mitzvot you can't even make a shaliach. Why can't you make a shaliach to put tefillin for you? Because it has to be on your guf. He'll put on tefillin for you, but it has to be on your head. So, what's going to help שליחות? The vort is then where it doesn't help at all, the lashon is the guf. Here where it does help, but it's not as good, is also the lashon the guf. Because it has to be with your guf, if it's done with your guf, it's better than if it's not done with your guf. But it's not a question whether you do it yourself or you don't do it you do it yourself. Cuz your guf is yourself. I know, but the question which lashon you're using. So you're using the lashon, do it yourself, don't give it to somebody else, that means that do it yourself. But here, it's not a question, do it yourself. We're saying the mitzvah's why is the mitzvah better? Because the mitzvah that's done with your guf is a better mitzvah. The mitzvah you have to do the mitzvah. You if the chiyuv is on you, you can't make a shaliach, but you did you is doing it, not out you versus somebody else because you're throwing it off. You yourself. A mitzvah that's done with your body. And therefore, if Rashi says the ikar is the body, Rashi learns the din in the mitzvah. The Ran when he says that you should do it with, the אשה should do it בידה, it's a din in the mitzvah. The Ran who says that it's בעצמו, it's a din in in in the on the person, not in the mitzvah. Now, if we say it's a din in the on the per- in the mitzvah, there's a possibility to say, now I'll explain soon why, there's a possibility to say that the din that you should not be מקדש a woman without seeing her is not a new din. There's one general דין, מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו, that it's like for קידושין. There's a din that the קידושין that's done for you is better. Then we go a step further. If you didn't see her, it's even more than that. That's a further step in מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו, not two separate dinim. If you learn the din is on the person, the fact that you should do it yourself and not another person, then it has nothing to do with the fact that you can't be מקדש an אשה without seeing her, because if you're מקדש, you can't, you're not מקדש without seeing, there's a problem with the קידושין. This is a din on the person to show, so there's no connection, so each din is a separate din. But if you learn that the ענין of מצוה בו is also a din in the קידושין, a din in the mitzvah, in this case it's the kiddushin, so there's a possibility to learn that they're not two separate dinim. The din of אסור לקדש עד שיראנה, that you shouldn't be mekadesh, is like a continuation of מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו. And we say like this: there's one general rule, מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו, and if you do it not yourself, the kiddushin is not as good. If you didn't see her, the kiddushin is even worse. It's all it's all further. If you learn that it's, but that you could only learn that if מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו is a din in the kiddushin, then you could say this is an extension to further. If it's really on the person, there's nothing to do, they're two separate things. Now,

Rashi and the Rambam, who we said learned that it's a din in the mitzvah, they could learn that the whole idea of of of of אסור לקדש עד שיראנה is part, an extension of מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו. That's what forces Rashi to say that it's not an issur. If the whole מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו is not an issur, that for sure everyone agrees, then even though the extension is also not. Ay, the Gemara says issur, what the Gemara means, it could lead you to an issur, which is, the Gemara says, it'll lead you to you'll hate her. But it's more than that. I'll tell you, I'll read you the Rambam then. Huh? Why would you hate her? Because you don't know, you might not like her, you didn't see her. Now I'll tell you even more. The Rambam says like this. Listen to this. Plehdike Rambam. If you look at the Gemara, the Gemara says, why shouldn't you be mekadesh an אשה unless you see her? So he says like, I'll read it, שמא יראה בה דבר מגונה, because you're going to you might see something disgusting, something bad, you'll disgust her, and רחמנא, the Torah says, ואהבת לרעך כמוך. Torah says you have to love every Yid? So this whole din that you can't be mekadesh without seeing her, it's a din in אהבת ישראל. Look at the Rambam. Rambam says like this: לא יקדש אשה עד שיראנה, don't be mekadesh until you'll see her, ותהא ישרה בעיניו, and he likes her, שמא לא תמצא חן בעיניו, maybe you might not like her, so far so good. So the Gemara says what will happen if you won't like her? You'll be over on ואהבת לרעך כמוך. Rambam says, ונמצא מגרשה. You might divorce her if you might like her. A new thing, the Rambam wanted to say this. או שוכב עמה והוא שונאה, or you'll have relations with her while you're hating her. And he doesn't finish off and it's an issur of ואהבת לרעך כמוך, and he's mentioned, he doesn't say you'll live in the house and you'll hate a person, you might have relations with her and you'll hate her. Where in the world did the Rambam get this from? So I'll tell you. Why is that an issur? One second, what? Yeah, no, Rambam doesn't say ואהבת לרעך כמוך. So I looked in in in the Rambam La'am, they write on the הערה here, right afterwards they add, and the Torah says, also they figure it's from the Gemara. The Rambam doesn't say it. The Rambam could have written this. He wanted to say something else. The Rambam also follows this whole shita, like we said, that it's not a real issur. It's a din in מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו. Why could it be a din in מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו? Because מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו is a din in the Kiddushin. The Rambam holds we said it's not a din in the person, it's a din of the Kiddushin. This is also a din in the Kiddushin. And the Rambam if he holds it's a דין ממילא could be an extension. How is this a din in the Kiddushin? According to the Gemara, it's a din in אהבת ישראל, not in the Kiddushin. There's nothing wrong with the Kiddushin. Comes the Rambam and says, that's not what the Gemara means. He explains the Gemara: we're afraid if you marry her, give her kiddushin without seeing her, this is very possible that you'll divorce her. What's going to happen? That means that the kiddushin is a type of kiddushin that in it leaks divorce. It's more closer to divorce, so that's a חסרון in the kiddushin. I'll give you an example: there's a Rambam who says, takes from the Gemara and says you're not allowed to marry a woman ודעתו לגרשה. You can't, not allowed to marry a woman thinking, planning, planning to divorce her. You're not allowed to marry her with planning to divorce her. Is that those רבנן who would go around and they married for one day? Then you can plan to divorce her. That's a din? No, it's the, I know which Gemara you mean, a different Gemara. Gemara says a gavra rabba doesn't matter because she doesn't mind, you know. Gemara says that a gavra rabba, because you're not allowed to do it anyway, you're not allowed to have a woman in this city, in this city, not allowed to have a wife in different cities. Gemara says a gavra rabba, so it's a different thing. But anyway, that's not this שאלה. So, the Rambam brings this din that you're not allowed to marry a woman with intending to divorce her two times. And the Rebbe explains, why twice? Because they're din twice? One in Hilchot, Hilchot Ishut in marriage, and one in Hilchot Isurei Bi'ah in in life between a husband and a wife. And the Rebbe says like this, because there are two problems here. One problem is, you're cheating her, you're lying, it's גניבת דעת. You're marrying her, she thinks you're going to marry her for life, and now all you have mind to divorce her. Then there's another din, and the Rambam, the other din, the whole inyan of kiddushin is to be one, בעצם when you marry forever. If you marry a woman and in the marriage you intend to divorce her, it's a problem in the, it's a חסרון. It's not, it doesn't make it not married, but it's a, it's a problem in the kiddushin. So the same thing the Rambam does here. Here, it's not planning to divorce her, so there's no גניבת דעת, but the idea that there's a kind of kiddushin, חכמים felt if you don't see her, there's a 50% chance you're going to divorce her. So the קידושין לכתחילה is a type of kiddushin has a problem. And then the Rambam continues: and let's say you won't divorce her. It doesn't say you won't like her, אהבת ישראל. שוכב עמה, he said that you'll have relations with her which is the concept of marriage, and you'll hate her. Having relations which is the inyan of a husband has to love his wife, and to hate her, it's a סתירה to marriage. So this what the Rambam is telling is because the Rambam holds that it's a din in the kiddushin. Both mitzvah bo yoter mi'shelucho is a din in the kiddushin, and this problem is a din in the kiddushin. If it's a din in the kiddushin, the Rambam has to explain himself, why the din in the kiddushin? The Gemara says it's a problem with אהבת ישראל. So the Gemara didn't mean that that the issur that might come out, but that's not the problem, the problem is that the kiddushin is a problem. You're marrying her and you're planning to divorce her, not planning, you're you're marrying in such a way which there's a very strong chance of divorce. So such a marriage, every marriage if you marry normally, there's no chance of divorce. If divorce comes up, it's a new thing that happened. But the marriage itself ligt as a, this is a setirah, an opposite of marriage. So that's the Rambam, it all goes according to the Rambam's shita so. Well, how does the Rambam deal with the Gemara's words that it's issur? So the Rambam learned איסורא אית ביה. There's an issur that is in it. It's a pele! The Gemara doesn't say this is asur. איסורא אית ביה, there is the issur! Because what could happen is, it could lead you to an issur. In the picture, exactly! But not that this is itself asur. The Rambam's meduyak on the Gemara's words. Words, I'm thinking so. If they would get married, is that valid? No, it's valid, of course. Even if you get married intending to divorce, it's valid. But it's still, you shouldn't do it, because why? Because there's a problem with the marriage. But there, you're intending, that's a real issur. This is not a real issur, but it's the same type of problem. So mimela you could put together. So mimela the Rambam holds that it's a issur, that that's a part of mitzvah bo yoter mi'shelucho. And since mitzvah bo yoter mi'shelucho is not an issur to begin with, so this also isn't issur. The same thing with marrying a קטנה. What's the problem marrying a קטנה? She might, because it says, she's small, she won't know later if she'll like him. It's the same problem. It's a part of מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו. You can't do it because this is going to happen, the same thing for the marriage, there's going to be a problem in the marriage. It's all because you hold like that. Mah she'ein kein the Ran- She'll grow up and you won't like her. That's what the Gemara said. Mah she'ein kein the Ran, what does the

Ran say? The Ran doesn't use the word גופו. He says, better to do yourself. Yourself means, to show that it's גברא. If it's a גברא, then you can't learn that the other parts are an extension of it, because this is something has to do with you and the אויבערשטער, whether you show the אויבערשטער you like him or not. So according to him, there is no reason to say that when the Gemara says asur, it doesn't mean asur. So he learns also מסתמא אסור. So when it says asur to marry until you see her, he learns פשוט פשט אסור. And Rashi is in the middle with Rambam? And and together with the Ran. The only problem is, in the first case of marrying a קטנה, the Ran learns like Rashi. Right, so that's- No, that's the problem. So give it a hava amina, I'll try to explain. There's a, because for a difference reason. So difference reason is, it's נוגע to the לשון of Rashi and the לשון of the Ran. When the Mishnah says, a man could marry off, מקדש his daughter כשהיא נערה, so Rashi says, דכל שכן כשהיא קטנה, certainly she's קטנה. And then he says, but then why does it say נערה? To teach you a derech eretz, that you shouldn't do as a קטנה. So Rashi learns כש-, כל שכן קטנה, that he taytsh the words of the משנה נערה means קטנה also. Doesn't mean, it just כל שכן קטנה. Rashi goes like this: כשהיא נערה כל שכן קטנה. See, Tosafos does the same thing in a different way. Tosafos asked a kashya on on the Gemara. The Gemara says that the reason it says נערה is to tell you that you can't be מקדש a קטנה, so Rashi, the Tosafos asked, what makes you say so? Maybe when the Mishnah says נערה, it meant נערה, certainly a קטנה, קטנה you have אוודאי the power to do it. So Tosafos says, in that case it shouldn't have said anything. Shouldn't have said this. Should say, האיש מקדש את בתו, right? But, so the way that Tosafos does is, he asks a kashya, why can't we learn the Mishnah means קטנה, too? Rashi doesn't do that. Rashi learns the משנה טאקע means קטנה. But then we have a kashya, why would the Mishnah tell us קטנה and נערה? The Mishnah shouldn't say anything, and we'd know both. So it comes out, according to Rashi, the Mishnah says clearly, כאילו, it says in the Mishnah you could be מקדש a קטנה. So how could they say it's אסור to be מקדש a קטנה, when the Mishnah says, האיש מקדש את בתו נערה, וכולל, and as if it's כולל in קטנה? So obviously the word אסור doesn't mean assur. Now, in this part the Ran learns like Rashi. The Ran learns that the Gemara that the that the Mishnah means כולל in קטנה. So the Ran also learns that the Mishnah, when it says מקדש a נערה, it includes קטנה. So the Mishnah basically is telling you you could be מקדש a קטנה and a נערה. Aye the Gemara says assur? So, so the Ran also says, so in this case I must say, for some, but this really must not be isur. They use the לשון אסור, but it's like a strong lashon of not being a nice thing. Okay. That's one. Now,