ב עמוד ב, תנו רבנן: כיצד בכסף? How do you do Kiddushin with כסף? נתן לה כסף או שוה כסף ואמר לה: ״הרי את מקודשת לי״. If he gives the woman כסף or שוה כסף and he says to her, he gives her כסף and says: ״הרי את מקודשת לי״, or other expressions that the braisa brings which are good, הרי זו מקודשת. She's mekudeshet. That's the way it's done. אבל היא שנתנה לו ואמרה היא, but let's say she gave him money and she said: ״הריני מקודשת לך״, I'm mekudeshet to you, etc. etc., אינה מקודשת, it's nothing. That's the braisa. מתקיף לה רב פפא, and Rav Pappa asked a question. He says look at the reisha, look at the beginning of the braisa. The beginning of the braisa said when is it good? If he gives and he says. טעמא דנתן הוא ואמר הוא, only if he gives and he says, that's when it's good. הא נתן הוא ואמרה היא, what happens if he would give and she would say? אינה מקודשת, that's what comes out because it says, wait, how is it good? He gives and he says. It's mashma any other way, it's no good. So if he would give and she would say, it's no good. Okay. אימא סיפא, look at the second half. אבל היא שנתנה לו ואמרה היא, the second half says that if she gave and she said, אינה מקודשת, לא הוו קידושין, it's nothing. It's mashma when is it no good? נתנה היא ואמרה היא, she said, gave and said. הא נתן הוא ואמרה היא, but let's say he gave and she said, and the second part is משמע הוו מקודשת? So it's a contradiction. So the

Gemara says, no, wait. And then the Gemara says: הכי קאמר. You have to read the braisa like this: נתן הוא ואמר הוא, if he gave and he said, פשיטא דהוו קידושין, for sure it's kiddushin. נתן הוא ואמרה היא, if he gave and she said, נעשה כמי שנתנה היא ואמרה היא ולא הוו קידושין. Then that is as good as if she would have given and she would have said, and it's no good. So when the seifa says if she gives and she says, it's not like a new din, that's like a continuation to the reisha. Only if he gave and he said is good. But if he would give, but she would say, it's no good, as if she would have given and she would have said. That's one pshat. Iba'is eima, another pshat: that נתן הוא ואמר הוא מקודשת, if he gives and he says, she's mekudeshet. נתנה היא ואמרה היא אינה מקודשת, if she gives and she says, no good. נתן הוא ואמרה היא, if he... He says it's safek. It's a safek. And חיישינן מדרבנן, and מדרבנן we're afraid. That means מדרבנן you have to accept this as kiddushin, and therefore she could never marry anybody else unless she gets a get from this guy. So it's a machloket here in the Gemara. The

first לשון in the Gemara says that if he gives and she says, it's as if she gave and she said, it's no good. And איבעית אימא, another לשון says, no, that if he gave and she said, it is a safek, it's safek. If it's a safek, חיישינן, we are חושש מדרבנן. So, obviously, we have to understand what is the machloket between the two sides. What is the safek here? Both of the Both the questionable parts is where he gave. Yeah. He gave and she said. She said. The other one where where she gives and he says Nobody's talking about that. That's another trace. That's not what we're talking about. I mean, how can you know the situation? It seems from here that those are the extremes and we know for sure. No, but he's asking what about the other case? What if she gave and he said? Oh, she gives and he said. Yeah. You can't tell which Okay, listen, but there is other דינים about a אדם חשוב, let's let's see. So what is the safek here? According to the second לשון that it's a safek, what is the safek? So, Rashi, it seems the safek is like this: if נתן הוא, he gives, Rashi says these words: דמי לכי יקח איש אשה. This is like the pasuk says: ״כי יקח איש אשה״, when a man takes a woman. But אמרה היא, when she says: דמי ליקח היא של איש. She's doing something, it's as if she is taking the man. She's doing it. So it seems like this is the safek. The safek is, since he gave, so that's ״יקח״. She said, it looks like ״תקח״. The question is, is it good or is it not good? And that's why we have a safek. So we have a machloket here with the safek. So, number one, let's understand what this machloket is. Number two, if the ברייתא wants to tell us, according to the first lashon, that if he gave and she said it's no good, why did it have to say, if he gave and she said, it's like as if she would have given? It should say: it's no good, finished, and why say that? Yeah. Also, this lashon in Rashi These are all questions on Rashi so far? No, this is for the question on the Gemara, too. You think Rashi is asking this? No, no, no, not at all. I'm asking the question. Why does it say this? In Rashi We said that Rashi said נתן הוא is כי יקח. אמרה היא, she is כי תקח, and that's a problem. So by אמרה היא, Rashi says דמי, this looks like כי תקח איש אשה, אשה לאיש. Looks like she's doing her side. Why does Rashi say it looks like it? 'Cause we're not sure. There's a safek here. But on the first part where it says נתן הוא, Rashi also uses the לשון דמי לכי יקח איש איש לכי יקח איש. It looks it's like יקח איש, it's not like. It is! So by יק- by נתן הוא, Rashi should have said הרי זה כי יקח איש. And over there, he could have said דמי. But why does Rashi say by נתן הוא also דמי, it looks like? Now you have another thing, the Ran here.

The Ran comes here and asks a she'eilah: The Gemara, where it says ספיקא היא, it's a safek, it means it's a safek whether this kiddushin is good kiddushin or not. Since she said he takeh gave, but she said. My question is that spoiled the kiddushin or not? So, he asks a kashya, this is a safek whether mid'oraisa the kiddushin is good. So, this is a ספק דאורייתא. Why does the Gemara say חשינן מדרבנן? The Gemara says ספיקא היא וחשינן מדרבנן. It's a safek, and we're חושש מדרבנן. Why why מדרבנן? Should have said ספיקא היא וחשינן. Since it's a ספק, every ספק דאורייתא you have to be What is the klal? ספק דאורייתא לחומרא. If you have a ספק on a דין דאורייתא, you go לחומרא. ספק דרבנן לקולא, ספק דאורייתא לחומרא. So, why why does the Gemara say חשינן מדרבנן? So, he says, I'll tell you why. Maybe. Maybe because here, מדאורייתא, even though it's a ספק, she should not be מקודש. Because there is a חזקה here. And don't we always follow חזקה? He doesn't even say what the חזקה is, but the peshat is, he means she is בחזקת פנויה. She is be'emet not married. Now there's a ספק, did that status change? She got some money, did it become קידושין or not? So, the klal is, a lot of times when we have a חזקה, when we have a ספק, we go after the חזקה. A lot of times we have a חזקה. We talk about where there's a ספק whether she's married or not, we always say therefore Well, it depends. Well, he's going to ask this kashya. But here he's asking a He's saying, we could have given the חזקה, and therefore מדאורייתא the קידושין should not be קידושין. That's what he means. ספיקא היא, it's takeh a ספק. But מדאורייתא, even though it's a ספק, she shouldn't be מקודשת, and מדרבנן, the רבנן said we should be חושש. But then he asks a she'eilah: Why is this different than other ספיקות where we don't follow the חזקה? He gives examples. See the Ran, second line on the Rif. He says, I'll bring you

an example from the Rif. Later on the Gemara, it says a sh'eilah: What happens if a dog is chasing her, and the and the guy says, \"I'll help you, I'll save you from the dog. I want you to be מקודשת to me with the hana'ah that I'm giving you of saving you from the dog.\" So, the Gemara has a sh'eilah: Is she מקודשת or not? Because on one hand, he gave her hana'ah. On the other hand, what do you mean he gave her hana'ah? He had a mitzvah to save her. Every Yid has to save another Yid. So, he's not giving her hana'ah. So, the Gemara doesn't know. Teiku, no answer. So, the Rif comes and says, no answer, so it's a ספק קידושין. If a guy if this happened, it's a safek, and she's ספק מקודשת מדאורייתא. So, we see from here we don't follow the chazakah. So, the Ran himself asks, \"Okay, I was thinking to say,\" he says, \"maybe here the reason why even though it's a safek, we say חשינן מדרבנן, because mid'oraita we follow the chazakah, but we see by that case, we don't follow the chazakah.\" Comes the Avnei Miluim. The Avnei Miluim wants to make a chiluk. He wants to say there's a chiluk when we follow, not by every safek we'll follow the chazakah. It depends whether it's a ספק במציאות or a ספק בדין. If it's a ספק במציאות If it's a ספק בדין, then what will the chazakah help? If it's a ספק במציאות, let me explain what it means. That's where the chazakah comes in. If it's a ספק בדין, and we don't know what the halachah is, the fact that she has a chazakah, what's that going to do? She has a chazakah, and that will change the din? We don't know what the din is! If it's a safek a ספק במציאות, we don't know what happened here, so we say because that she's בחזקת פנויה, so we assume probably what happened was that she didn't get kiddushin. So, that's what he's mechalek. He says in the case where the case that the dog was running after her, that's a ספק בדין. And if there's a ספק בדין, that's why the din is that even though there's a chazakah, we don't follow the chazakah. Here it's a ספק במציאות. Why is here a ספק במציאות? So obviously he learns, what is the safek here? Not like we learned before in Rashi. He obviously learned the safek is a different thing. We learned in Rashi that it's a ספק בדין. We learned that the she'eilah here, since the pasuk said כי יקח and not כי תקח, and since she's saying, is that a problem with כי יקח? That's what we asked. Since the din is that he has to do it, so he gave, he did it, but he didn't say. So we have a she'eilah, how bad is that? A שאלה במציאות? A שאלה בדין! Obviously he learns that it's a שאלה במציאות, that the safek here is a different safek. The safek is that other learn that when he gave, how do you know he meant לשם קידושין? כלומר, when you give and you don't say, you give a woman money, how do you know he meant לשם קידושין? So, you still have to have kiddushin. Here he didn't say, she said. The she'eilah is if when she said it, is that enough to prove his kavanah? That's a שאלה במציאות. That's how you learn with the safek. That's why it's a safek whether kiddushin or not. So, if you learn like that, his teiretz is a good teiretz. And over here, it's a ספק במציאות, that's why here we say mid'oraita is no problem, and חשינן מדרבנן. Over there, by the case of, it's a ספק בדין. But לפי מה as we learned before from Rashi, and there is many, and the Ran himself seems to be learning דף ז that this is a safek not because of the kavanah, it's a ספק פשוט whether the problem of the pasuk. Since the pasuk says כי יקח, is this a problem or not? So if it's a ספק בדין, then they're both the same, we're back to the question. Question on the Ran. So now the question, yes, so obviously, no, the Ran's kashya, the Ran himself asks the question. Oh, he's doing the Ran. He has the question himself. He says, what's the difference between these two cases? So the Ran when he tries to answer his kashya, but it's, his teretz is not a teretz. So what what does she say? I'm just הריני מקודשת לו. She says, with this and I'm accepting? Yeah. He gives her money and she says, הרי אני מקודשת לו בזה, התקבל זו ש התקבל זו, give something like that. She's still The men's ring, huh? I married you. I married you with a. Yeah. So now we have to understand that. So we have these three she'eilot: what is the machloket, why is it נעשה, why did Rashi say דמי, and now the kashya of the Ran. No, obviously he learned the peshat. And he does He learned that the safek is not the pasuk, the safek is kavanah, which is a she'eilah of He has the he he make that with the Ran The Ran on דף ז, it's a good kashya, yeah, that's a good she'eilah. The Ran here doesn't say, the Ran on דף ז seems to be saying it. It could be he learned that No, no. You've got to be careful if you hand something to the wrong girl, she could just say, with this I'm No, but חשינן מדרבנן, yeah. Unless you say right away, no. If you say no, why not? But if you don't say anything, Is that why they don't give the other rings for engagement? No, that's by the kalah, yeah. But what is he saying? Any woman, not only... if she tells you you give her something and she says הריני מקודשת לו, according to the second lashon, it's safek. חשינן מדרבנן. Now she needs a get from you. But say, but if he answers no, no, what you're saying is bichlal, yeah, your own kallah you shouldn't give. Anyway, this then there's another shaila here the Ran asks. He has שאלות like this: no, not a shaila. We just said the shaila was, why is חשינן מדרבנן since it's a ספק דאורייתא? So the Ran comes and says like this: you know, according to the Rambam, the Rambam is fine. Because you look at the Rambam and he brings this din, the Rambam says like this: If נתן הוא ואמרה היא, he gives and she says, ספיקא הוא. It's a safek. And therefore, pashut, she needs a get. The Rambam did not mention miderabbanan. So he says, the Rambam is fine. He has the kashya, why say miderabbanan, it's a ספק דאורייתא? As the Rambam, it's fine, the Rambam takeh doesn't say miderabbanan. Comes the Pnei Yehoshua... Doesn't say miderabbanan. He doesn't Who, you said doesn't mention it? The the Ran himself. When he asks the kashya, how come the Gemara said miderabbanan, so he says, you see the Rambam was smart. The Rambam when he writes it, he didn't write the word miderabbanan. Comes the Pnei Yehoshua and says to the Ran, the Rambam, according to the Rambam himself, the word miderabbanan happens to fit. Why? What was the problem here? It's a ספיקא דאורייתא. It's a ספק דאורייתא. We have a famous machloket, a very famous machloket, when we say ספיקא דאורייתא לחומרא. Every ספק לחומרא, is it לחומרא מדאורייתא or לחומרא מדרבנן? The din, whenever there is a safek by a דאורייתא, you have to go לחומרא. Who said that you have to go לחומרא? Is it from the Torah that you have to go לחומרא? We learned it many times, and it comes up, it's a very famous thing, or מדרבנן? The Rashba says, every ספק דאורייתא you go לחומרא מדאורייתא. The Rashba. The Rambam

says, ספיקא דאורייתא לחומרא מדרבנן. So he says, according to the Rambam, this is very good. Funkt farkert, it should say מדרבנן! Since it's safek, it's a ספק דאורייתא, so חשינן מדרבנן! Why doesn't the Rambam write it? No problem! Oh, in every case, like in every case where there's a ספיקא דאורייתא, it's מדרבנן. So he so the so he comes, so the Ran happens to say that according to the Rambam we understand why the Rambam should doesn't write מדרבנן, because if we say it's a ספיקא דאורייתא, so comes the Penei Yehoshua, funkt farkert, that according to the Rambam the word should say מדרבנן! Well, can't both pieces fit? Well, yeah, the Rambam holds like that, that we know. The question of the Ran and of the Penei Yehoshua's peshat is the opposite now: so why does the Gemara here say מדרבנן? Since according to the Rambam, the Rambam holds that every ספיקא דאורייתא is מדרבנן לחומרא, every time the Gemara says by a ספיקא דאורייתא that you have to be machmir, does the Gemara add מדרבנן? No! Because according to this shita, it's a כלל of the הלכה, every time that a ספיקא ד... מדרבנן. So just like the Rambam himself did not say it, why would the Gemara have to say it? Why? Because it's somehow a special case? Why why somehow a special case? You got to find out this is a special case. Why is this different? Why is it only a special case? That can be a general question on the Rambam always. If the Rambam holds That's the only case where it happens. This is the only case in the whole Gemara where it says מדרבנן? Uh, yeah. In fact, there's many hundreds of cases that it doesn't say. It doesn't say. No, so Here it does. Here it says, the question is why. It fits to the din it's מדרבנן, but why would the Gemara pick here to tell us מדרבנן when this is a כלל בכל התורה כולה according to the Rambam, that ספיקא דאורייתא מדרבנן? Then, well, then that's a general question on the Rambam. You have to answer why No, why the Why the Gemara said it? Yeah. According to the Pnei Yehoshua pshat, Pnei Yehoshua says what does the Gemara mean here, that it's a ספיקא דאורייתא? And because it's a ספיקא דאורייתא, we're מחמיר מדרבנן. According to that that this is what the Gemara means, according to the Rambam, then according to this it's a kashya. Why why mention it? Just say safek and חיישינן, and we know it's מדרבנן, because according to the Rambam every ספיקא דאורייתא is מדרבנן. This כלל of ספיקא דרבנן I mean ספיקא דאורייתא מדרבנן לחומרא Yeah. This is something that the Gemara learns out? No, if it's if it's saying in the Gemara, we have a problem. How could there be a מחלוקת between the Rambam and the Rashba? Right. Gemara doesn't say it. The Rishonim tried to learn out from cases of the Gemara. They don't make up the דינים. They have to learn from the Gemara. If the Gemara would say it clear, it wouldn't be a problem. The Gemara doesn't say it clear. And that's where the machloket comes. What is the peshat in all the Gemaras in גאנץ ש״ס? So the Rambam learns that we see from okay all kind of cases that it is derabbanan. Midrabbanan lechumra, and the Rashba says de'oraita. Remember, I once mentioned one case that they both learn out from the same din. Each one learns out his sevara from the same din. From mamzer. The din by mamzer is, it says, ממזר לא יבא בקהל ה׳. A mamzer can't marry. And the Gemara darsh's: ממזר ודאי לא יבא, it's a special דרש, ספק ממזר יבא. A safek mamzer does. Could marry. Mid'oraita, midrabbanan not, but safek mamzer could marry. So the Rambam, so what do we see from here? The Torah tells us that that it's a safek, you're allowed. So the Rashba did opposite. The fact that the Torah has to tell you that in this case it's mutar is a ראיה כל התורה כולה it's asur. The Rambam brings it back to him, though. Yeah, so anyway, goes back and forth. But But my she'eilah is, why would the Gemara here have to say midrabbanan to teach us this din when it's klal in the whole Torah, like you Then you have other kushyot the Pnei Yehoshua asks. This next case here, אמר שמואל Shmuel says a din: נתן לה he gives her כסף ושווה כסף. Yeah? And he says to her, \"הרי את מקודשת.\" Oh, he shouldn't mekadesh her. If he says, \"הריני אישך, הריני בעליך, הריני ארוסך,\" אין כאן בית מיחוש. He

says a different lashon, which is not the right lashon, there's nothing. But What to do? Okay. Whatever. אין כאן בית מיחוש. Wouldn't they need another? No. Doesn't have to be a pirud. So he asks a kashya, why is it so pashut? Doesn't have to be a pirud? No, no, there's nothing. This not Don't even look at what he says, אין כאן בית מיחוש. If he gives, and then he says, \"I'm your husband.\" But according to what's said before, if he doesn't say anything, and she says, is also a safek. How come here there's no safek? Just according to what we said before, we're talking about the safek is supposed to be a pasul. What are you talking about? Who says? So why? What's the What would be the safek here? What's the problem here? He says to her, \"I'm your husband.\" What she says. What's different? Before she says, \"הריני הרי את מקודשת הרי אני מקודשת לך.\" Yeah. And here it says he says to her, \"הריני אישך. I'm your husband.\" What's the problem with being your husband? Why can't he say Why does he have to say, \"You're mekudeshet to me\"? What's wrong with saying, \"I'm your husband\"? Because the pasuk, cuz it has to be yikach. But he did, he gave, ela mai the yikach, the saying was not so fit to the yikach. Well, when she says it's also not fit to the yikach. And nevertheless, we say it's only it's a safek. It's not One lashon says vadai not good, but a second lashon a safek. How come here we don't find that? Good. They have more kashyos, but I want just to get to the point, is like this. We We

spoke many times, we gave get and then we'll apply the same thing to kiddushin. If you send When you give a get, you have to have a keritut. It has to be cut off. If there's a safek, when you give a get, and there's a safek keritut, safek whether it cuts off, so it's not a get at all. Not that pashat it's a safek keritut, cuz there's no such thing as a safek keritut. Cuz the moment it's not a hundred percent cut off, then that half percent that's not cut off is a connection, so it's not cut off at all. Cutting off means cut off completely. Right, right. So here, if it's a safek keritut, there's no And as I mentioned, there are many cases where we find there's no such thing as safek. Like sefirah, the vort the Rebbe brings a sevara that there is no such thing as counting sefirah with safek. Because the whole idea of counting is vadai. The moment you count and you still don't know, maybe, so you didn't count, so it's not and we find other cases where there's no such thing as safek. The same thing by כריתות. But I say the same thing by kiddushin. Kiddushin is the opposite of a get. Kiddushin is when there's a connection. If there's a safek if the connection is a real connection, then it's not a connection. Then it's it's nothing. It's not the same like by כריתות. Because by

כריתות, it's worse. By כריתות, כולה the problem. You give a get. The whole It's a peleh! You want to cut off between you and that person, you're giving something! But you shouldn't give. Giving is a contradiction. Ela mai? You're giving a get. So as long as the get is clear כריתות, it's fine. If it's not clear כריתות, then you got a problem. You're giving and you're not sure it's cutting, so obviously you're giving. By kiddushin, giving is no problem. Adraba, you're giving because you're trying to connect. But nevertheless, if the kesher, if the connection that you're making is not an 100% connection, so as long so if the connection itself, the פעולה of the thing that you did is a safek whether it is kiddushin or not, not if the פעולה is for sure, but we don't know what you meant. We do find cases where there's a safek in your כוונה, the halacha is that it's a safek kiddushin. We find that. But there the פעולה you did was a פעולה של קידושין. But if you the פעולה you do is a safek whether it's a פעולה של קידושין, then it's not kiddushin at all. And it's not, even though we're not sure it's not, but the moment we don't sure we're not sure it's not a פעולה. I'll give you an example from a different din altogether, a different sugya, but it'll just shed some light. We don't need example, it's pretty clear. Yeah, yeah, but I want to No, no, I want to Why shouldn't it? Cuz maybe like anything, when there's a safek din, it's a safek. Clear is clear, yeah, but by kiddushin the Yeah, because there you're cutting off and you didn't cut, like you have strings attached. But kiddushin maybe there's a shtikel attachment. Kiddushin you could think, if there's I'm trying to say that if Right, but it's not. Yeah, but it has to be the why? Maybe not, maybe if I do a tenai, but if I do a safek, so it's a safek kiddushin. See, cutting off you can say as long as there's a string attached, you're not cut off. It's a connection. So I'm connected partially. Why can't there be a connection that's a safek connection? So why must it be not? So I'll just bring an a dugma from a different thing. In

Likutei Sichot חלק י\\"ד, the Rebbe talks about a different ענין, but we'll see the connection. He talks about the melacha on Shabbos of קשירה. Of tying. Which is going to see right away a dugma here with tying. And he says that like this: The din is that when are you chayav, when is the מלאכה מדאורייתא, if it's a קשר של קיימא. You tie it with the intentions to leave it forever. If I tie a knot, even a real knot, with the intentions of taking it apart tomorrow, mideoraita that's not a melacha. Okay. Nevertheless, midrabbanan you're not allowed to do it. Then the Gemara says at the end of Shabbos, that if you want to make a knot לצורך מצוה, for a mitzvah, and it's not a קשר של קיימא, you're allowed to do it דין מדרבנן. מדרבנן אפילו. Comes the she'eilah on this, mideoraita we said the issur is to make a קשר של קיימא that's gonna stay. Why wouldn't making a קשר that's not של קיימא be אסור מדאורייתא on חצי שיעור? You're not allowed to eat mideoraita חזיר a כזית. That's that's the din. Half a כזית is חצי שיעור. The din is, חצי שיעור you're not chayav, but it's אסור מדאורייתא. מחלוקת רבי יוחנן וריש לקיש, חצי שיעור אסור מן התורה. רבי יוחנן סבר אסור מן התורה, we pas ken it's אסור מן התורה. Why shouldn't be a חצי is a חצי שיעור? Because it's not called a קשר. Okay. So the answer is, right, it's not חצי שיעור, it's חצי מלאכה. It's not a half. שיעור means you have the whole איכות, the whole quality of what what the issur is, you're just missing the quantity, the amount. But here it's a different type of melachah. He gives another example: the the, oh, the

famous example of חצי שיעור versus חצי מלאכה versus חצי שיעור is by carrying. הוצאה, carrying on Shabbos, you have to make an עקירה and a הנחה. You have to pick it up in one רשות, carry it out of the רשות, and put it down, or ד' אמות. What happens if you make an עקירה without a הנחה? Me'oraisa it's not asur. But miderabbanan it's asur. That's the first Mishnah in Shabbos. All the conditions cases of when you have the poor man standing outside, and the, and he puts it in. So all the cases if the person, one person makes the עקירה and הנחה, he's chayav. If he makes only an עקירה, just picks it up and doesn't put it down, someone else let's say takes it from his hand, it's asur miderabbanan. So the same שאלה we have over there: why is it asur miderabbanan, why is it not חצי שיעור? Me'oraisa the שיעור is an עקירה and a הנחה, so miderabbanan it should be חצי שיעור. The answer is like you said: חצי שיעור would mean, let's say, you have to carry four אמות, you carry two אמות. But this is a half of the melachah is made up of two parts: of picking up and putting down. You did half of the melachah, so it's חצי חצי שיעור. So, חצי מלאכה, fine. So we see the mefarshim that this is asur of This is not a חצי שיעור, it's חצי מלאכה. But they're both asur miderabbanan. How come by the case of the קשירה, לצורך מצוה, it's mutar miderabbanan, and by the עקירה without the הנחה, or הנחה without the עקירה, מדרבנן it's even by a mitzvah it's אסור מדרבנן? As a matter of fact, some of the מפרשים explain, why did the Mishnah pick a case, right, to explain עקירה and הנחה with an עני and an עשיר, a poor man, to tell you that even if you intend to give tzedakah, you're doing a mitzvah, it's still אסור מדרבנן. Why? So, obviously, even though they're both not חצי שיעור, in them itself there is a difference between the two, that the איסור of the עקירה and הנחה is worse than the איסור of the the קשר שאינו של קיימא. עקירה and הנחה, you just need another part. Right. By the קשר? Yeah, you needed דעת by קשר, maybe even less. No, it's the whole the whole thing is דעת. The answer is that קשר שאינו של קיימא is not פשט it's חצי מלאכה, it's not even חצי מלאכה. It's not even half. It's not a מלאכה at all. Now the רבי explains there that if you make a knot and you don't intend to have the knot stay forever, it's not a knot, it's not tied. Not the פשט you tied less. See, an עקירה without an הנחה, you did part of the מלאכה. You didn't do the whole מלאכה, you did part of it. The מלאכה is made up of three parts: pick it up, take it out of the רשות, put it down. You only did one part, two parts. But you did part of the מלאכה. Here, you didn't even do part of the מלאכה. The כוונה to keep it, that makes a קשר. Look, if you don't have the כוונה to keep it forever, it's like taking two pieces of string and putting it like this, touching it together. That's nothing. That's not a קשר. The concept of a קשר is if it's going to stay. If it's not a hundred percent קשר, it's not the pshat so you have fifty percent of the melachah, it's not a melachah at all. But in that case, why did the רבנן come and make it אסור בכלל? We said that mid'rabbanan it's assur. So the Rebbe explains that when the רבנן made issurim, so sometimes we find they made an issur as a gezeirah. We don't allow you this because if you would, it could bring you to a issur de'oraita. Sometimes we find the רבנן by Shabbos made a din because it's דומה למלאכה. Ha, that's business. It's דומה, it looks like it. See, people don't know the difference. Someone sees you making a knot, doesn't know what's in your mind, so it looks like it, that's all. But it's not because it's a gezeirah something. So since it's only דומה, so the רבנן takeh אסר'ד it, but לצורך מצוה, since it's really not part of the melachah at all, so they allowed it. מה שאין כן עקירה without an הנחה, it's takeh only a half of the melachah, but it's part of the melachah, and it might bring you to a melachah, so the חכמים אסר'ד it in all cases. But what am I trying to bring out from here? Trying to use this as an example, that when it comes to tie a knot, which is kiddushin, not בגשמיות, if it's not a hundred percent, if there is a safek there, then it's nothing. It's not even part of the melachah. It's not even like, okay, ספק קידושין. There's no such thing in such a case that there's such a such a, what do you call it? Da'at, not da'at. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So there is no case of ספק קידושין. But this is only said if the safek is in the פעולה that I did: is it kiddushin or not? And as a פעולה that's a safek if it's kiddushin or not, it's not a complete kiddushin. But what happens if I have a פעולה, that the פעולה is good a hundred percent, and just there's a safek, we don't know what he had in his mind? Then that ספק קידושין would be. Because it depends what the safek is. If the safek is in the Kiddushin itself, that's one thing. If the safek is in not in the Kiddushin, but the safek is we just don't know what he had in mind. Almost if he had in mind that this is Kiddushin, it's Kiddushin. If he didn't, then it's not. But maybe he did, so it's a ספק קידושין. But You mean in this scene it could never bleed into what he has in mind? Right, right. I'm saying, but what would be in a case where we would not know? I'm saying, if you have a case where the safek is whether this is really meant for Kiddushin, but not because the פעולה you did is a safek whether this פעולה is a קידושינ'דיקע פעולה. You have it in your mind. So then, see, by כריתות it probably wouldn't be either, but by Kiddushin it would be different, because it's a different type of safek. And I want to give an example of another other inyan also, where we find a chiluk where the safek is. You know what, I think that would be an example and make it clearer. There is still there's time. We

have a din of אינו מתכוין on Shabbos. It's again a דין שבת. If you do a melachah, but you didn't have intent to do it, you knew it could happen, like for example, the famous example, you schlep a chair, there is a dirt floor, a floor, and it might It might make a חריץ, it might not, it might make a furrow, it might, okay, whatever. But you're not interested in it, so you're allowed to shlep it, and if it'll make it, it'll make, we don't care, because that's not what you were mechaven to do. If it's a big chair that when you shlep it, it'll have to make a חריץ, even though that's not your intention, you want the chair to come from there to here, but since there's a pesik reisha, we call it, so then you're chayav, it's asur, pesik reisha. But if it's אינו מתכוין, it's mutar. Then we have another din. A din which falls in the category of safek pesik reisha. Lemashal, example the ט״ז gives: if you have a drawer and you don't know, there might be flies there, inside, yeah. You're going to close the door, the drawer, and if there are flies there, it'll be צידה. It'll be captured, it's one of the ל״ט מלאכות. But you don't know if they're there or not. Now, you're not intending to catch flies. You want the door out of your way, the drawer, whatever. Are you allowed to close it or not? Well, you're not mechaven, and you're not sure it's going to happen. So he says that's asur. You know why? Pesik reisha, if the flies are there for sure, it would be asur even though you don't intend. So this is a safek pesik reisha. Now what's the difference between a safek pesik reisha and eino mitkaven? No, why? What is the case difference? What is the difference between the חריץ when you שלעפ and it might make, you don't know if it'll make or not, and that's mutar because it's an eino mitkaven? Here also: you're not mechaven, and you're not sure it's going to happen. So it says, because there, either way, if if it is going to happen, it'll if it is there, it'll definitely Oh! The safek is not on the פעולה! See, the case that we're giving here, the safek is will my פעולה cause it or not? Here, my פעולה will definitely cause it, the safek is on something else: are the flies there or not? Like Alter Rebbe brings a din, you're not allowed to open a door when there's a candle not far from the door, you're not allowed to open the door because there might be a wind outside and by you opening you will cause it to go out. And he says even if you're not sure if there's a strong wind outside, because and you're not intending, you want to go out, because it's a safek pesik reisha. If the wind is there, it'll definitely burn it, blow it out. But that's eino mitkaven? No. Eino mitkaven means that there's like you're not, what's the safek, אינו מתכוין means it's a safek, we don't know if it'll happen, but the safek is on the פעולה! That's eino mitkaven. But if the פעולה definitely could do it, the safek if the flies are there, or the safek if there's a wind outside, but if there is a wind it'll certainly do it, that's called a safek pesik reisha. I want to say the same thing here also. If there's a safek in the פעולה of קידושין, that safek is like as if it doesn't there's no קידושין. Like over there, the safek it might make the חריץ, it's mutar, we don't consider the חריץ at all, as if it didn't there's no דין איסור. If there's a vadai it'll make, but we just don't know if if if if if the thing is there, that's the difference. The same thing here. So I want to say like this:

therefore, coming back to the point that if you give a קידושין and it's a safek if if the פעולה is a פעולה of קידושין or not, such a safek is not קידושין. That's exactly what's happening in our case here. In our case here, there's a safek whether what she says, when you give and she says, is it קידושין or not? Because kiddushin has to be from you, and there's a safek if this is, and you and you have to give and you have to say. The she'eilah is is saying hers kiddushin or not? So it's not a safek if you give we don't know what the situation is. Like could be a case of safek, a guy does something and we don't know what he had in mind. That's a safek. What he did is definitely kiddushin, the she'eilah, did he mean it or not? But here there's a she'eilah in the עצם פעולה: is this called giving kiddushin or not? So even though it's a safek, what should be the maskana? Definitely not! That's exactly what's happening here. It's a safek. I want to say that the first lashon in the Gemara and the second don't really argue b'etzem. See, normally you learn in the Gemara, the first lashon says if he gave and she said, it's not a safek, vadai no kiddushin. איבעית אימא, the second lashon says, no, it's a safek and chayshinan. I want to say they both agree that a case like this, because it's a safek, they both agree it's a safek, and because it's this type of, it's no kiddushin. That's what the first lashon says, פראסט, no kiddushin. He doesn't say safek, but he says לא חיישינן, it's nothing. Comes the second lashon, and says, I agree with you, it's a safek, and because of that, no kiddushin, but the Rabbanan came and said that in this case, it still should be chayish, you know why? Because it looks like kiddushin. That's just like by the case of the קשר, why did the Rabbanan make אסור קשר שאינו של קיימא? A קשר not של קיימא is not קשר at all. So what? Because it's domeh! Here, it's also domeh, that's all it is. So the machloket between the first lashon and the second lashon is very simple: only one word. It's definitely not קידושין, the she'eilah is did we care, since it's דומה, so the first lashon says no, the Chachamim didn't didn't look at דומה, and the second lashon says, yeah. That's why Rashi says here when when it says נתן הוא, דמי לקיחה. The kvetsh is, we ask the kashya: if he gave, that part is definitely קיחה. No, since the אמירה said, even that part is nothing. But that part is דמי לקיחה. So since it's דמי לקיחה, for the same, so the second lashon says, חיישינן מדרבנן. Now this, why is it not always דמי לקיחה? No, בפועל קיחה, but because there's a safek on this whole קידושין if it's קידושין. Not there, according to The first part of Rashi wants to, he wants to say this safek, so נתן הוא, דמי לקיחה אית, אמרה היא, דמי לשיחה. So I was saying, why does Rashi say, because בפועל on this Gemara everyone agrees that sof kol sof the נתן הוא doesn't work either. Because a נתן that has a סוף The first part of Rashi means, why did he say דמי ל... דמי לקיחה? Because he wants to say that lema'aseh it's only דומה. He gave to No, Rashi doesn't say that he didn't give. Rashi says נתן הוא ואמרה היא. So נתן הוא is דמי לקיחה, אמרה היא is דמי לשיחה. Why, so I asked, why, that half is that half is קיחה, that half is good, the problem is the second half. Saying this half is also no good. But that's דומה! Since he gave, see, if he she gives and she says, it's not even דומה. But if he gave, it's דומה. Rashi says it's דומה, like over there, I'm using the same לשון, over there it says the לשון דמיון, here it's דומה. What do you mean, if it's מדאורייתא, אומר מדרבנן, קודם כל, מדאורייתא, אפילו מדרבנן, nothing. מדאורייתא for sure, it's Not even דומה. So, so this is what the Gemara says, the second לשון, ספיקא היא. Normally you learn, second לשון says ספיקא היא, because it's a safek, we're חיישינן מדרבנן. So the Ran had a good קשיא, if it's a safek, why חיישינן מדרבנן? It's a ספק דאורייתא! I'm saying the פשט, ספיקא היא is garnisht! But חיישינן מדרבנן, דרבנן said you should be חושש. So now, it has nothing to do with the Rambam, whether ספיקא דאורייתא מדאורייתא לחומרא מדרבנן לחומרא. In this case, it's a ספיקא דאורייתא which even in all situations is nothing, but the רבנן, because it's דומה, they decided to be חושש. Now this answers why this case is different than the case when the guy was running after her, she was, the dog was running after her. The dog was running after her, what's the safek there? לפועל the קידושין was קידושין, אלא מאי, we don't know whether he was he was מחוייב to do it anyway, so ממילא is he מקפיד for the קידושין or not. That kind of safek is דאורייתא ספק. Not in the פעולה itself. Not in the פעולה itself, but here it's a safek in the פעולה itself, that's why here it's different. Now the

only, so everything is fine, it answers all the שאלות. Now, why why נעשה? That's why the Gemara says נעשה! It becomes like. The Gemara tries to say that if he gave and she said, his giving is no good! And that's what the Gemara, and that's why the Gemara we ask the שאלה of the Gemara, why did the why does the Gemara have to tell us that if she gave and he gave and she said, it's as bad, נעשה it becomes as if he would she would give and she would say? I said, why why say that? Why have to say, if he gave and she said, it's אין קידושין? It tries to tell you this vort, that even though there's a safek, but the fact that he gave in a situation where she said, it's as if he didn't give! His giving doesn't count, the קידושין בכלל doesn't count! So he's trying to tell you, not just, see, if it's say אין קידושין we'd say, you know why it's not קידושין? Because half of the קידושין is missing, the אמירה is no good. But he's saying, no, the whole קידושין is no good, the נתינה is no good. נעשה כמו שנתן נתנה נתנה היא as if she gave. Now the only problem we have now is this: so why doesn't the Rambam say מדרבנן? See, so why doesn't the Rambam, the Rambam when he says this is a safek, and you have to give קידושין, you have to give a גט, when he said that, the Rambam skipped the word מדרבנן? Question is why. So different reasons, before we said why, because any ספק דאורייתא is מדרבנן, he doesn't have to say. But we said that's hard to say, because then why did the Gemara say it? But now I'm saying the פשט in the Gemara is different. It's a safek because it's nothing, and the רבנן were חושש. So why doesn't the Rambam say חיישינן מדרבנן? Because this is not the case where he's part where he argues with the Right, right, that's not the case. Yeah, so So why doesn't he say it? It's just so it's because the Gemara said it. No, no, because it's so, it's obvious. Obvious for a different reason, it's obvious because this is not the usual So that's why, so just like the Gemara has to say it, because this is an exceptional case, so he should say it! It's not normal, but he had to tell us what the situation is here, so you should have said that חיישינן מדרבנן, it's מדרבנן. But here I want, I want to say this, that the Rambam here, when he says this דין, he says it in a different, one letter different than he usually does,

and I think that's the key. Whenever there's a ספק קידושין, that's קידושין ספק, the Rambam uses the לשון מקודשת בספק. מקודשת בספק. Here it's not בספק. He says מספק. The only time he ever does. I'll show you another example where he does. See? What does that mean? I can't say anywhere, but wherever he says that, I think we have to מדייק. מקודשת מס... מקודשת מספק could mean not that because of the ספק she's מקודשת מקודשת מטעם ספק, just like over here. Why were the חכמים, why did the, why were the חכמים חושש? The דרבנן חושש. It looks. Because why does it look? Because of the ספק it looks. So he's not saying that the קידושין is קידושי ספק. But yeah, what I want to say here is a different vort. You make, so it's a קידוש ודאי מדרבנן. I want to say that this is different. On one hand less, on the other hand more. Whenever there is a קידושי ספק, it's a קידושי ספק דאורייתא. Here, דאורייתא is not even a ספק, but it's only מדרבנן, but on the other hand, it's a קידוש ודאי מדרבנן. Which one is thicker? Well, so it seems מסתברא that a ודאי דרבנן is stronger than a ספיקא דאורייתא. Now we see, he

says because of a different thing. He says that the second day of Shavuos, he says, is more חמור than the second day of Pesach or Sukkos, etc., because why do we have two days? Right, every Yom Tov the רבנן made l'chatchila because of a ספק, we didn't know. Shavuos was never a ספק, because by the time Shavuos came around, they knew 50 days from Pesach, they already knew when Pesach was, and everyone they could. Ela mai, the רבנן wanted to make two days to make all ימים טובים the same. So he says, so Shavuos stuck in no ספיקא דאורייתא, but it's a ודאי דרבנן. The other days, it's a it's דאורייתא, but a ספיקא דאורייתא. So I want to say here, according to the pshat I'm saying is, it's on one hand less than the other, but it's worse because it's מדאורייתא it's nothing, therefore מדרבנן it's a ודאי. So I want to say that's what the Rambam means. The Rambam says מקודשת, not, when he says מקודשת בספק, he means it's a ספק קידושין. Here it says מקודשת מטעם ספק. Because there is a ספק, that's why the רבנן said מקודשת. I'll give you an example where else he says it. He says it by the famous case, someone gives קידושין to a woman, he says על מנת שאני צדיק גמור. Afilu if he's a רשע גמור, מקודשת מספק. Or he says the opposite, if someone says על מנת שאני רשע גמור, and he's a צדיק גמור, מקודשת מספק. Why? Because the first case, maybe he thought teshuvah in his mind. So from that one second he became a צדיק. The other one, maybe he thought avodah zarah in his mind. The moment you think like that you become a רשע. And here he says מספק. So I

want to say, you know why he says מספק? Because בעצם why is it מדאורייתא? There's not even a ספק. So see, we always bring a ראיה from here a person can do teshuvah in a second, but לפועל we don't know if he did. Now, on what basis? A person is a רשע גמור. Is there any indication that he did teshuvah? So why should that even be a reason for a ספק? Certainly the other case. Why is there a reason to suspect maybe a צדיק גמור thought avodah zarah? So, and the מפרשים ask that. So I want to say אינמי over there there is תקין no ספק. This whole דין is a pure דין דרבנן. Pure דין דרבנן. Right. So that's why over there the Rambam also says מקודשת מספק, that it's not because it's a ספיקא דאורייתא. It's not just מדאורייתא we're מסופק maybe he thought avodah zarah. It's the רבנן said מקודשת מטעם because there's mid'oraita we don't know, which m'meila is nothing, מקודשת מספק. So the same thing here also. M'meila the Rambam doesn't have to say the word mid'rabbanan, but the Gemara, where it doesn't say, the Gemara just says ספיקא היא, one has to add a שינוי מדרבנן. Huh? No, but, no, it does, because we should know that this is stronger than a regular ספיקא דאורייתא. Regular ספיקא דאורייתא is לחומרא מדרבנן

על ספק. This what we're saying is מקודשת ודאי מדרבנן. Lechatchilah the רבנן make a din. So the Rambam should indicate the difference. So I'm saying he indicates by saying מקודשת מספק. Yeah. We leave early today? Mhm. 4:35, right? I hope so. 45 minutes till 5:00. 4:05. Yes. Fine? The leopard represents עזות, brazenness. The eagle represents lightness, קלות. The deer represents speed, זריזות. And the lion represents strength, גבורה.