Gemara says here in Kiddushin דף ה עמוד א: מניין שאף בשטר? The Gemara goes into the different limudim of how we know the three ways you could מקדש an אשה. We said you could מקדש an אשה with כסף, שטר, and ביאה. So here the Gemara talks about how do you know you could מקדש an אשה with a שטר, with giving a document, writing down that הרי את מקודשת לי and you give it to her, you מקדש her. So the Gemara first has a קל וחומר, but then the Gemara brings a pasuk. Since the pasuk says ויצאה והיתה, in the pasuk it says, if you will marry a woman and you don't like her, you have to write her a document, which is וכתב לה ספר כריתות, a document, ונתן בידה, you give it in her hand, ושלחה מביתו, and send her out. And then the pasuk says, what happens if ויצאה, she goes out, והיתה, and she gets married לאיש אחר, with another man. The pasuk continues with whatever. So, we see in the meantime that the Torah uses the words ויצאה והיתה together next to each other. ויצאה means goes out, which is divorce, and והיתה is marriage. So, from there we have a klal: מקיש הויה ליציאה, we compare the marriage to divorce. And the Torah tells you, מה יציאה בשטר, אף הויה נמי בשטר. Just like to get divorced we know that it is through a document, so from there we know that to get married is also through a document. Then the

Gemara comes with a question: if you're telling me that we compare marriage to divorce because they're both the same, why don't you do the opposite also? ואקיש נמי יציאה להויה, let's compare divorce to marriage and say, מה הויה בכסף, אף יציאה בכסף, just like you could get married with money, with כסף, you should be able to divorce with כסף. אמר אביי, so Abaye answered, יאמרו, people are going to say, כסף מכניס, כסף מוציא? If kesef is the one to bring you in, that could be the same, the same thing could be to take you out? סניגור יעשה קטיגור? The prosecutor, the the the defender will become the prosecutor? In other words, the defender meaning the good part, the good one, the marriage which is good, that's through kesef, that same kesef could become a get, could become a divorce? The logic says not so. פרעגט די Gemara: אי הכי, so, שטר נמי, so the same thing by the שטר, יאמרו, people are going to say, שטר מוציא, שטר מכניס? השתא דאתי, סליחה, קטיגור יעשה סניגור, the prosecutor becomes the defender? The Gemara says no, מידמי? דהאי שטר לחודיה והאי שטר לחודיה. The words in the shtar are different, it's not the same shtar. Here the words say הרי את מקודשת לי, you are מקודש to me, the other shtar by the get it says הרי את מגורשת, you are divorced, so then that's not the same shtar. פרעגט די Gemara: הכא נמי, האי כספא לחודיה והאי כספא לחודיה. So the money is also different, different money. What kind of different money? So Rashi explains, when you give it, you say what you're giving it for. You say הרי את מקודשת לי. If the din would be that you could divorce with kesef, you would, by the giving of the money you would say הרי את מגורשת, it's also different. So the Gemara answers: טיבעא מיהא חד הוא. But the money itself is the same. So the difference is, in the shtar, in the shtar that you give are written different words, but here the money itself will be the same. It's just that you will have said what it's for, but the actual money and the giving of the money would be the same, and that's why- Look, how money always... No, no, when I say money I mean value, I mean kesef. Yeah, all right. Why? It's not kesef, it's a שוה פרוטה. A בהמה or a... So it's the same thing, it's all because of kesef, it's all because of שוה כסף, not because it's a בהמה. The fact is that you give this, kesef is מכניס, you're מקדש an אשה with money, with kesef, so whether it's a בהמה or a piece of cloth or whatever it is, it's because it has a value, the value of it, it's not the thing itself, and you're going to use the same thing to take out. אלא מאי, you're going to say different things, but the actual kesef that you have or the שוה כסף doesn't say anything different, and therefore you can't. And this is how Rav- Abaye remained, that how do you know that you cannot divorce with kesef, it is because if kesef takes you in, kesef cannot take you out.

Rava אמר, Rava comes and says no, אמר קרא, I have a pasuk. The pasuk says וכתב לה, you shall write to her a get. So we דרשנ׳ן, בכתיבה מתגרשת, ואינה מתגרשת בכסף, that she's divorced with writing, the Torah comes to teach you that she cannot get divorced with kesef. So the way we know that you cannot divorce with kesef is from a pasuk. Then the Gemara says, what about according to Rava that Rabbi Yosi HaGelili uses that pasuk for something else? What's the rest of the pasuk? וכתב לה? ספר כריתות. But you know already to get married from ויצאה והיתה, מקיש הויה ליציאה. The question is how do you know you cannot get divorced with kesef? So because it talks about divorce it says וכתב לה, you shall write to her. The pasuk tells you writing is something that will take her out, and nothing else, and you can't divorce her through giving her kesef. Only through writing, so it's like a special limud, a מיעוט in the pasuk. Then the Gemara says that Rabbi Yosi HaGelili, who uses this pasuk for a different דין, where does he know it from? From a different pasuk. From the word ספר כריתות, ספר כורתה. But basically it's Rava who comes here and says that you need a pasuk to teach you. So whether it's this pasuk or that pasuk, but we need a special pasuk to teach you how you know that you cannot divorce by giving kesef. So the mefarshim explain, not that you know you can't divorce by kesef, you have to divorce by, only and not through kesef, we can put it that way. But whatever we learn out from here that this is the way we know that you cannot divorce with כסף, because there is only way to divorce is כתב, that's what the Torah says. But the way Rava says that we know it from because of a דיוק in the pasuk. Now

Abaye said it, didn't have a pasuk for it, he used the שכל, he said סברות, he said you cannot use the same thing to divorce and to מקדש and to marry. And the fact by a שטר you could, because the שטרות are different, but by כסף not. Why didn't Rava, why does Rava need a pasuk if we have a sevara? So the mefarshim say because obviously Abaye does not, Rava does not hold of Abaye's sevara. He doesn't accept that logic, so therefore you need the pasuk. So what we're going to discuss here, what is the reason why doesn't Rava accept Abaye's sevara? So Abaye has a sevara, what is the reason why he argues? That's one thing. Another question is, do we have the Avnei Miluim? Huh? Okay. So, now there's another question the Avnei Miluim asks. When the Gemara asked, when the Gemara said that if so, how could you give the שטר? I mean they went back to Abaye, how do you

say you can't do it with כסף because it's you can't do the same thing for קידושין and for a גט? How come with שטר you could? So the Gemara answered they're different שטרות. This says one thing, this says another. Then the Gemara had asked, so this is also different money. And the Gemara answered no, in the money itself you don't see the difference. So he asked, what was the Gemara's hava amina that there's different money? I mean we know that even though when you give the money you say, but the saying is not what divorces. When you say הרי את מקודשת, הרי את מגורשת, it's not the say. You have to say to clarify the giving, but it's the giving that whatever you give that makes that that makes whatever he's supposed to make, whether קידושין or גירושין. So therefore, why did the Gemara think that the money is different? I mean it's an obvious thing that the money is the same money. The difference is only, the Rashi says, in saying, but the money itself. So why was the Gemara so sure, not so, what was the Gemara's hava amina that the money is also different, just like shtar is different שטרות, כסף could be? We answer no. I mean it's so pashut that the shtar, it's written in the shtar and that's what you give, and here the money you give is the same, what is the hava amina? So he comes with a peshat and he says according to a שיטה, or certain שיטות, he'll answer the kushya. He starts off with the whole thing that there is a machloket between the Sema and the Taz. When it comes to כסף, קנין כסף, כסף is not only by acquiring a wife, you could acquire a field with כסף. So the Sema says the concept of acquiring something, whatever you can, with כסף is because you're paying for it. It's payment. Even though what you're buying is worth more than a penny, more than a פרוטה, it's worth a million dollars, so this is a down payment. It's the beginning of תחילת פירעון, but it's payment, that's what it is. And according to him, when you acquire a wife, yes, the way you acquire a wife through כסף is because you're paying. Comes the Taz, the Taz and the Bach, and they argue on the Sema. They say no, it's not paying for a wife, you don't pay for a wife. So they claim that the כסף is a קנין like any type of a חזקה. There's a קנין חזקה, that's not because it's a payment for something, it's a certain way the Torah said if you do so and so, you will acquire it. Same thing if you give כסף, that's a form of acquisition acquisition, but it's not paying. That's what the Taz holds. Comes the Machaneh Ephraim and he says there's a machloket here, I think the Sema is right. And he goes into a whole ביאור to explain how it's what's the peshat that you do acquire you do pay for the wife, whatever the peshat is. But the bottom line he says, I think that's the peshat. Now he says according to this peshat, I will explain this Gemara. The Gemara is talking, why can't we divorce with כסף? Let's say we would be able to divorce with כסף, for sure giving כסף to divorce would not have been paying, right? There's nothing to pay. When you acquire something, so you say you pay for it. When you're getting rid of something, you don't pay. I said in shiur, a bachur asked me, well, maybe you pay to get rid of it. But usually it's not paying. So therefore, if there would have been such a thing as divorcing with kesef, it would not have been paying. What would it have been? A din, a certain kinyan, a certain din of divorce of kesef. So according to that, what would have been that divorcing through kesef and marrying through kesef are two different kesafim. The marrying through kesef is payment. The divorce of kesef is not payment, it's just a kinyan. So if you hold that even by marrying a wife, the kesef is just like a regular kinyan but not payment, then the marrying and the divorce would be the same. Both of them, there's a certain din that you could marry through kesef, and if the din would be to divorce kesef, there's another there's a din. So you're doing the same thing, and you do the opposite, opposite פעולה. So then it's a problem. But he says, \"I agree with the Sema that marrying a wife, meaning when you pay for when you give kesef for marrying, you're paying. For sure had the din be to divorce with kesef, it wouldn't be payment. So to that's the kesef. That's what the Gemara meant. The Gemara asked by money, it's also two different things, האי כספא לחוד והאי כספא לחוד, because even though you'll be doing the same thing, but סוף כל סוף, they're different types of kesef. The Gemara says, 'No, after all, the money is the same even though what behind it, the halachah behind it is different, but the bottom line is you're doing the same thing. You're giving her money and that makes her מקודשת, you're giving her money that makes her מגורשת, and that cannot be.' That's how he answers.\" \"Why can't it be?\" \"Oh, we done that before. So, that's his teirutz on the she'eilah. This teirutz is not 100% so clear. Number one, his teirutz is only if you learn like the Sema, that קידושין, kesef of קידושין is payment. Then it's different than kesef of גירושין, which if if it would be, is not payment. But if you learn like Bach or the Taz, they're both the same again because even by a wife, it's not payment, even by marrying a wife, it's not payment. So according to that, we still need an answer pshat in the Gemara. Beside that, even his pshat is not so clear. What was the Gemara's hava amina? The hava amina. What was the Gemara's hava amina? The Gemara's hava amina was, according to his peshat, that because giving money for kiddushin is payment, giving money for gerushin is not, they're different. But they're different in in תכלית, they're different in in halacha. But the Gemara knows that it's the same. What's the hava amina? We're back to saying what's the hava amina? The fact that they have a different תכלית we know anyway. One you say הרי את מקודשת, one you say הרי את מגורשת, it's different. The problem of the Gemara was one that he asked, but sof kol sof, they're the same money. So what did he answer? Because this is a this קנין behind this is this, behind this is this. And what does the Gemara answer? Exactly that, that it's still the same. So what was again the Gemara's hava amina that this is different כסף because of the halacha? So we're back to the she'eilah. Okay. To answer this, try to answer what is the difference between מחלוקת Abaye veRava. Why Abaye says a sevara and Rava says needs a פסוק, סברא is not good? And what is the peshat in the Gemara in Abaye that we have a hava amina this כסף this כסף is different? Let's bring in a different דין. We

have a Gemara later on, דף נ ע״א. This is right in the begin, beginning by קידושין שלא נמסרו לביאה. We actually learned it not long ago in in shul. קידושין שלא נמסרו לביאה, if you מקדש a woman, but it's a kind of kiddushin that's impossible for you to have ביאה with her, it's a halacha. למשל, a guy goes over to a man and says, 'I'm giving you a פרוטה, I'm מקדש one of your two daughters.' Doesn't say which one. We don't know which one it is. Now obviously one is מקודשת, one is not, but we don't know which one. So the question is, now since you don't know which one, it's a safek. But do they both need a get, or the whole קידושין is not valid? Abaye says מקודשת. The קידושין is valid and we just don't know which one it is. Now one is מקודש, the other one is forbidden, she's the sister of his wife. Now each one there's a safek: is she the wife or is she the sister? So you can't have ביאה with either one, it's asur to have ביאה. So Abaye says right, but the קידושין is, and since we don't know which one has קידושין, so you can't have ביאה with her, you can't stay married, but you got to give both of them a get, because each one is a ספק מקודשת. Comes Rava and says, 'Sorry, the whole קידושין is not חל, because קידושין שלא נמסרו לביאה, a קידושין that could never ever come to ביאה is to begin with not קידושין, and therefore you don't need.' What is the sevara again behind this מחלוקת אביי ורבא? And again, you see the right away we see Abaye veRava, so we're seeing we see that we're going to have some connection. So Abaye says מקודשת and Rava says אינה מקודשת, right? קידושין שלא נמסרו לביאה, שאינם מסורים לביאה, אביי אמר הוה קידושין ורבא אמר לא הוה קידושין. What is the sevara behind it? To explain what the sevara behind here is, and mimela we'll get to understand what is the sevara behind our Gemara מחלוקת אביי ורבא, let's go to a different Gemara, on דף ט ע״ב. There it's not Abaye veRava, but it's a it's Rava with somebody else. I mean, it's not so clear either. So you can't live with her, but why shouldn't the קידושין be חל? Who? What happens if a woman is not able to have ביאה? For whatever technical reason. Is the kiddushin not חל? But still, I'm asking, yeah. I mean you're right, but you've got to have. And what does Abaye argue? It's not really to go into. A man, when he says to two sisters, they're both asur to each other, now why can't he say \"I meant that one.\" And the father say, \"Yeah, okay.\" Now what happens First of all, what happens if he says \"I don't know who I meant. I didn't care who.\" If he don't know who he meant, so they're both asur, because you don't know which one Right. So then what is the din? Do they need a get or not? In such a case, where he says \"I didn't care who, I didn't mean anybody.\" If I'm asking you if he did. I'm asking in a case where he did, what is the din? Second of all, even if he says labdup can be the reason later. Later could be very labdup can't be the reason. But let's, I'm just saying what happens if he says clearly, \"I didn't I didn't know, I didn't care. You have two daughters, whichever one it is.\" So he doesn't know, there's no one knows. So mimela they're both asur. So Rava said because they're both asur, the whole kiddushin, the whole kiddushin to begin with is not kiddushin, and therefore they don't need a get. And Abaye said, If like kiddushin afterwards there's no they don't they're not allowed to be anyway, right? It's like So the קול, it's ראוי לביאה. It's מדבריהם anyway. It's mid'oraita. Right. Right. So Rava says they don't need a get. He could marry one of them. According to Abaye, he can't he has to give them both a get and can't marry either, because each one is a safek, maybe she's the sister of his ex-wife. And you're not allowed to marry a sister of your ex-wife, unless your ex-wife died. You said one is his ex-wife, they both didn't get married. No, no, no. He said woman gets kiddushin, it's asur to have ביאה with her husband until chuppah. That's a איסור דרבנן בעלמא. Okay. There is a din in the Gemara Kiddushin דף כ\"ז ע\"ב. Again Rava, but not Rava with Abaye, Rava with somebody else, but still Rava. Gemara asks a שאלה, when you write a שטר of kiddushin,

does it have to be written מדעת האישה? Well she has to accept it. She has to want, but it has to be written that she knows that when you write the שטר, so the Gemara first asks, do you need lishmah? Like a get has to be written with the intention for this person. Gemara says, yes, we need lishmah. Because we learn it out How do you know a shtar How do you know What did we say in our Gemara? How do you know you can be mekadesh with a shtar? ויצאה והיתה. From a get. We learn all the dinim of a get. Just like a get has to be written lishmah, shtar also. That's the Gemara פסק. Gemara had a sheilah, the Gemara answered. But that's not Is that one usually made out of leather or Huh? Never saw a שטר קידושין, there's no such thing as a שטר קידושין. We don't get married with a shtar. We get married with kesef. No, lishmah just we have to have in mind this woman. Yeah. The sheilah, now the Gemara had another sheilah, not lishmah, does it have to be מדעתה? Does she have to know about it? Why? Before. She doesn't have to know about it Well, you are saying very good. But let's hold it, let's see what the Gemara says. In other words, when he writes the shtar, does she have to know בשעת מעשה when he's writing the shtar? Or nothing at all. He just writes the shtar on his own, then later he speaks to her, and she says, \"Okay, I'm ready to be mekadesh.\" And he gives her a shtar. It's ready, readymade. It was written lishmah, he had a mind for her to be, but not מדעתה. So the Gemara says like this,

Rava and Ravina say mekudeshet, even if it's not written לדעתה, even if she didn't know about it, it's good. Rav Papa and רב שרביא אמרי אינה מקודשת, it's no good. אמר רב פפא, רב פפא said אימא טעמא דידי ואימא טעמא דידהו, I'm going to tell you my, their reason and my reason. I know both reasons. אימא טעמא דידהו, first I'll tell you their reason. כתיב ויצאה והיתה, It says, how do we know a shtar? We compare it to a get. מקיש הויה ליציאה, compare הויה, which is marriage, to get. מה יציאה לשמה ושלא לדעתה, by a get you don't need, like you just said, you don't need her daat. Can divorce by force, she doesn't even have to know you have a get in your pocket. You have a get ready, as soon as you go over you push it into her, she's divorced. So you don't need her daat. אף הויה נמי לשמה ושלא לדעתה, so by marriage you also don't need her daat. That's why he says, they, which means Rava holds, that it's mekudeshet, the get is the the shtar is a good shtar. אימא טעמא דידי, now I'll tell you my reason, he says. The same thing, ויצאה והיתה. You compare the shtar of kiddushin to the shtar of a get. מקיש הויה ליציאה, מה יציאה בעינן דעת מקנה, just like by the get you need the daat of the one that's being makneh, the one that's giving, by the get, who's the makneh, who's the koneh? The husband is the makneh and she is koneh herself. See, kiddushin is the opposite. Kiddushin, he is koneh the woman. The woman is the makneh and the man is the koneh. By get, it's the opposite. So he says, I hold, yes, you compare it to get. Just like by get you need the daat of the makneh, who happens to be the man, אף הויה בעינן דעת מקנה. So by marriage you need the daat of the makneh, who's the makneh? The woman. So we have here two ways to compare, and they both based on the same idea, of comparing it to a get, but how do we look at it? What is tachles the reason behind it? Why They both sound good. What is the reason whether you look like this or like this? So I'll tell you what what's possible to say, the reason which way you look. Even though

by that, it's the daat of the mekabel, he wants to, you know, so. We know that in marriage and divorce, there are two inyanim. There's the kinyan, and there's the issur. I believe I mentioned this before, kinyan and issur or אישות. There are two aspects. There is the kinyan, you acquire a wife, you acquire her, although it's not like you acquire, chas v'shalom, an eved, your your eved, but still there is some kind of acquisition that you have which is called kinyan. Then you have the אישות aspect. אישות, which is the the issur and היתר, אישות, which is marriage life, that's already a halacha because that that has nothing to do with kinyanim, and has nothing to do with being kinyan. Actually, if I mentioned last time, that's what the two expressions. The first perek starts with the word האשה נקנית, and the second perek starts האיש מקדש. נקנית represent is connected to kinyanim, and מקדש, this kiddushin, is more to issur. And and the truth is that when you marry a wife, both things happen. You get her as a kinyan, and you get her as an אישות. There are certain אישות development that happen. You're mutar to be having relations with her. She's asur now as an אשת איש to the whole world. Same thing by a get, you have the two opposites. Same thing, what you get rid of it, you get rid of your kinyan, you מקנה her back, and you get rid of her of the אישות. Now there's an אישות act that takes place. I explained once that

there are two two, Tosafot says there are two pshatim, I don't want to repeat that again, in what's the פשט הרי את מקודשת לי. So the one pshat is that you make her asur. Mekudeshet, what's, hekdesh, make her asur. לי means because of me she's asur. And the other, Tosafot said, the other pshat is, הרי את מקודשת לי means you are set aside for me. מקודשת, מזומנת, מיוחדת לי. So b'pshitus you could say these two pshatim are the kinyan and the issur. The kinyan is that you're mine, and the issur is you're אסור לכולי עלמא. Anyway, they're פירושים on that. There is a she'eilah: how does it work? Is the pshat of marriage, Kiddushin, the kinyan, Kiddushin is the ענין of a kinyan, the Torah said that if you are koneh a wife, this schleps and brings about certain הלכות of issur, of אישות? Or the opposite: what you're doing is you're doing an אישות type of act, and what this schleps along, then m mimeila when you when you marry a woman in דיני אישות, that makes her קנוי to you? There are many differences between these two ways. What nafka mina? All kinds of differences. One that's נוגע to us here is: the shtar that you'd be giving to marry or to divorce, I'd say divorce would be the same thing: when you do or give a get, what are you doing? Are you getting rid of a kinyan, and mimeila that pulls that you get rid of the אישות? Or the opposite: you get rid of the אישות and mimeila pulls the kinyan? The nafka mina would be with a shtar. Is this shtar a shtar kinyan, or is a שטר איסור? Is this shtar like a regular shtar when you acquire something through a shtar, so this shtar is called a shtar kinyan? Or is this shtar not a kinyan? It's a הלכה'דיקע שטר. It has nothing to do with kinyanim, it's a איסור'דיקע שטר that has to do with all kinds of marriage. Memayla the kinyanim will come out of it, but this is not a kinyan. Okay. What's the difference? Call it שטר קנין, call it You know, any title you want. It's a matter of semantics. No, it's not. The nafka mina is exactly here. By kinyanim, how does it work? By a kinyan, a normal kinyan is, if I'm the person to be קונה, and I have to do something, then when it comes to be מקנה, the other person has to do it. Doesn't work that way? If I buy something, I pay. If I sell something, he pays. That's how it works. Whatever by kinyanim, whatever we find to be קונה, when it comes to be מקנה, has to be the opposite, has to be the other guy. If it's issur, it doesn't work that way. If one person has the koach to make the issur, he's the person that had the koach to take away the issur: הפה שאסר הוא הפה שהתיר. Right? If this person has the koach, he has the power, it's in his hands to make the issur, it's in his hands to take away the issur. But if it's kinyan, if it's in his hands to buy, and that's what, now it's not his hands to buy, the other guy is to buy has to buy, so it's the other guy's hands. So by shtar, machloket between Rava and Rav Pappa here, how we compare the shtar to the get, whether we need the daat of the man in both cases, or we say the opposite: just like over there you need the דעת מקנה, here you need דעת מקנה, depends on this. How is it?

Rava said that you don't need her daat. Why? Because Rava says we compare it to a get. Just like a get, the husband's daat, here also you need the husband's daat, not her. Because Rava holds גדר of marriage is issur. If the husband's daat is the one that needs needed to make the issur, so it's his daat that you need to make to if you find it by taking away the issur by a get, you need his daat to be matir the issur, so obviously you need his daat to make the issur. Comes Rav Papa, and he says, \"I argue. I\" Rav Papa holds it's kinyan, and therefore he says you have to look at it the opposite. If you look at kinyan, then you look like this: if by the case of divorce you need his daat, so obviously you need the daat of the מקנה. So, when it comes to marriage, you need her daat because she's the מקנה, just like by buying something. If you need a daat, if I have to give you this, you need my daat to give it to you. Now, when you want to give it back, you have to need your daat to give it back. That's what he says. So, we if we compare it to a get, we have to reverse it because this is the same like a get in which way? That he is the מקנה and she in by get he's the מקנה and she's the קונה, so by by kiddushin, he is the קונה, she's the מקנה. So, by get you need his daat, by kiddushin you need her daat. Why is it? Because he holds that this is kinyan, not not issur. So,

Rava holds it's issur, and and Rav Papa holds it's kinyan. And now we have a machloket Rav Papa and Rava. This could be the source for the machloket over there by קידושין שאינן מסורין לביאה, even though it's Abaye and Rava and not Rav Papa and Rava, but Rava is the same. Rava, we said here, holds that it's issur. What's איסור? The אישות, the the the אישות of it. That's why Rava says, and that's like Yaakov said before, Rava says קידושין that you can't do ביאה is not קידושין. Because since the whole concept of קידושין is אישות, what is the real אישות? ביאה. If קידושין, is impossible to have ביאה, then you've defeated the whole purpose of the קידושין. Because that's what קידושין is. קידושין is you're accomplishing some kind of אישות aspect here. The kinyan will come later, but that's what the Comes Abaye and says, \"No. What you're doing when you're מקדש, you're doing a kinyan thing. אישות is a development which comes out. So, therefore, the fact that the קידושין cannot come to ביאה, that means that the קידושין cannot have the aspect of אישות in it, it's irrelevant because that's not what קידושין is.\" So, what do we come out here? That the מחלוקת אביי ורבא over there is the machloket whether קידושין is kinyan or איסור, just like the machloket here between Rava and Rav Papa. That Rava holds the kinyan the איסור, the עיקר of קידושין is איסור, and Abaye holds it's kinyan. So Abaye says you don't need it to have neither to have the possibility of of of ביאה, and Rava says it does. Now that we came to this point, we started with this: prove what Rava holds, then we proved it then explained Rava over there, and that lend us led us to Abaye. So now we know already מחלוקת אביי ורבא. So let's go back to our Gemara, which is also a מחלוקת אביי ורבא. What was our question here? HaGemara here, we're talking about how do you know you cannot divorce with כסף? So, Abaye says a סברא, and Rava has a pasuk. We ask, \"Why doesn't Abaye Rava like like this סברא? What was the סברא?\" The סברא was: is it possible to have כסף do both things? If כסף is going to marry, how could כסף also divorce? A פגע ומנע, that is this problem. Okay. Tosafos here, דיבור המתחיל פגע ומנע, asks a kashya. Quotes the Gemara earlier, where the haGemara seems to be saying complete the opposite. I don't know if to go into this, I know it's getting late. The Gemara

said over here, in דף ד׳ עמוד ב׳, wants to learn out, how do you know that you can מקדש with כסף? The bottom line is we have pesukim, but lechatchilah, the haGemara said, \"Have a kal vachomer. Have a kal vachomer: מה אמה עבריה, שאינה נקנית בביאה נקנית בכסף, אמה עבריה when you when you buy a Jewish maid, you only can קונה her with כסף. You can't קונה her with ביאה. So, what do we see from here? That כסף is not as strong as ביאה. כסף is stronger than ביאה, stronger than ביאה, you see? ביאה won't work, כסף will. So, זו, a wife, a woman that you could be קונה with ביאה, so, certainly with kesef because kesef is stronger.\" So, the Gemara says, \"No. מה לאמה עבריה, it could be by אמה עבריה is a special דין why you could be koneh her with כסף, שכן יוצאה בכסף because we know for sure that she could go out by paying money. So, if she could go out by pay-\" The pasuk says, \"גרעון כסף,\" how how could a a girl go out? Not divorce, of אמה עבריה. אמה עבריה goes out with kesef. Since she goes out with kesef, maybe that's why you could take her in with kesef. \"בזו, by a woman, שאינה יוצאה בכסף,\" a wife you cannot divorce with kesef, that's why maybe you don't know that you could be mekadesh with kesef. And that's what we need a pasuk, because kal vachomer is no good. Frekt Tosafos: What is the Gemara saying here? That the fact that she goes out with kesef is the reason why she goes in. Here we're saying it doesn't work that way, here it's the opposite. In our Gemara we're saying that to have in and out with the same thing, with both with kesef, is a stirah. Can't have them both. And there the Gemara punkt the opposite, the Gemara says, you know why she goes in with kesef? Because she goes out. Yeah, but what is the sevara here? Right, but we're trying No, but we're trying to use this. The Gemara says that what is the reason why an אמה עבריה could be koneh with kesef? Because she goes out with kesef. While a woman does not go out with kesef, maybe you can't. So the Gemara is making it clear that if going out with kesef is a reason why she could go in. Here we're saying the two opposites, that if she goes in with kesef, she can't go out with kesef. And there we're saying opposite. Tosafos answers like this: See, by אמה עבריה it makes sense because listen who gives. By אמה עבריה, when she comes in, who gives the kesef? Yeah, the owner who's buying her. To go out, who gives the kesef? Her father. That makes sense. Because it's two different kesef. Poshut azoy! If I buy something from you, I pay you. When I, when you, when I want to buy it back from you, I'll pay you. I mean, you'll pay me. Now if, no, if I buy from you, I'll, I'll give you the money. If you buy from me, want to sell it back to me, you'll give me the money. Obviously that, that's normal. That's a problem? The problem why you, that's the, that's the way normal things work. So by אמה עבריה it makes sense. By get, if kesef would work, for some reason the husband would give it. So to come out the husband gives the kesef to marry her and the husband gives the kesef to divorce her. That the Gemara says is no good. That's where there's a contradiction. That's the pshat, Tosafos's pshat in Abaye. That when Abaye says can't have כסף מוציא, כסף מכניס, can in and out, is because the same person is giving it, that's the problem. Comes out to me that the whole sevara, according to this, the whole sevara of Abaye is based on this, it's not that there's a problem of kesef in and kesef out, that's not a problem. The problem is who gives it. One second, one second. So this is the problem. Now this problem that Abaye has is only according to Abaye. Because Abaye holds that marriage, marriage is kinyan. By kinyan, that has to work the opposite. If to marry her he gives the kesef, so to go out she should give the kesef. Now for some reason he knows that she does, he won't, so that's why Abaye's sevara. Now we asked why doesn't Rava accept the sevara? Now we know why! Because Rava learns that it's issur. And by issur we said it's the opposite! By issur it makes sense it should be the same person. So that's why Rava can't accept Abaye's sevara. So Rava comes and says, how could I accept this sevara? בשלמא, בשלמא אדרבה, he's saying it can't be both to give. The whole problem you had according to Tosafos is the same person. According to me the same person is good! Because if kesef, he gives kesef because he could אסר her, he has to give the kesef because he's the one to matir her. So that, huh? No, we're talking about kesef now. We're talking about now, how do you know that kesef cannot divorce?

Abaye said, \"I know kesef can't divorce because if kesef marries, kesef can't divorce.\" And Rava says, \"I don't accept that sevara, I need a pasuk. If not for the pasuk, your sevara wouldn't be good and you would be able to divorce with כסף.\" Why does he hold you would be able to divorce with כסף, Abaye has a good sevara? Because I'm saying now his sevara is not סתם you can't have כסף do both, both ends. It's only because the same person. And what's the problem with the same person? If it's קנין, the same person can't do it. But Rava who holds it's איסור, איסור it makes sense the same person. So what would be wrong? So he could give כסף to marry, ממילא if כסף is good for, for גט, he would give כסף to divorce, it's up to him. So therefore Rava says, \"I have no sevara that it's no good.\" That's why he has to come out to a pasuk. And now we'll understand the pshat in the המשך הגמרא. Right, but the, that's what I'm saying, yeah. We had a kashya why can't he accept the sevara, why it's no good? Why does he need a pasuk to tell you it's no good? It's a good sevara that it's no good. So saying now that we know that Rava holds it's איסור, he has no sevara that it's no good. After she's married. After she's married is that. Unless she's only an ארוסה, then But even if it's the father, father and the girl are the same. Father, whatever the father does, it's him in place of the girl, it's like the girl. There's two sides here. You have the girl's side, whether it's her or father, that's one side, then you have the husband's side. Now, well, let's look into the המשך הגמרא. Could be the sister and the brother of the girl, too. Huh? Could be the sister and the brother of the girl, too. No. No, that דרבנן. דרבנן, if she has no father, the brothers could marry her off, דרבנן, it's not... Okay. So now let's go into the Gemara. So what did Abaye say here? That how do you know you can't divorce with כסף? Because you can't have both, and we said the pshat is because the same person is giving it. And then let's go vayter. What did the Gemara ask? But a שטר is the same thing! Gemara asks, שטר also, the same person gives. Likhora, the pshat should be that, how could you have a שטר both times the same person give? It's the same kashya because the Gemara asks kinda on on on Abaye: If you hold it's kinyan, if it's kinyan, if in one place he gives a שטר, then when you go the reverse, the other guy has to give the שטר. So how come here the שטר to marry the husband gives, and the שטר to divorce the husband gives? So the Gemara answers: מילי דהאי שטרא לחוד ומילי דהאי שטרא לחוד. But the words of the שטר are different. So I want to explain what is the Gemara's terutz, a little bit deeper than it seems. Abaye, we said if Now we're going if this whole discussion on Abaye. Abaye holds it's kinyan. If he holds it's kinyan, there's something another point here. Rav Yosef Engel brings a

Maharit. Huh? A Maharit in the chiddushim. A Maharit? He has different sefarim, on Rambam, חידושים on... תשובות, and he has on Kiddushin... Is the Maharit an Acharon? Yeah, some consider him an Acharon. Who's an Acharon? Who is Rav Yosef Engel? Rav Yosef Engel! He was in Poland? I think he was Yosef Engel was Rav in Bedzin... No, in Krakow, he was in Krakow. The Rebbe brings him very, very often. The famous chakirah of shlichut, the three ways of shlichut, the source of it, Rav Yosef Engel and who's it? The Gaon. The Rebbe would explain the difference between his דרך הלימוד and the... Rogatchover's because they were both very similar. Anyway, he brings a Maharit, and he just pashat in the Maharit like this: He says by every kinyan, really the kinyan is not what makes the kinyan. If I want to give you this or sell you this, it's not the kinyan, let's say, one of the kinyanim is הגבהה, let's say. Pick it up. If you pick it up, you're koneh it. He says, really, the fact that I decide I want to give it to you, and you decide you want to take it, that makes it yours. But who knows what's going on in your mind? So you have to have an act which expresses, megaleh your daat. So basically, it's only gemirat daat! The decision, the gemirat daat. Then you need a גילוי דעת, you have to be megaleh, to show, so there's a kinyan. That's how he says by kinyanim. The question is now, how is it by kiddushin? Is it the same or not? Is by kiddushin the decision that he has he wants to marry her, and she wants to marry, that's what makes it, and then the act is only to be megaleh the daat? Or there, no, the Torah says there there is a din of kiddushin that this and this makes the kiddushin? Nothing to do with... The giving, the act of giving the כסף, giving the שטר, or the ביאה? No, nothing... The דיבור is definitely megaleh what you're doing, but even the act... So, lechora, it would be תלוי in the two ways we said before. If kiddushin is a kinyan, then it's like every kinyan. Kiddushin is only a kinyan. So just like by every kinyan, the main thing is the gemirat daat, the daat aspect, the giving, the doing is only to be megaleh. But if it's issur, then it has nothing to do with גילוי דעת, then it's like a regular din, like the Torah says put on tefillin or this, so the Torah says give קידושין, so you have to give קידושין. So the act is... We're holding now according to Abaye, and Abaye holds it's קנין. If it's קנין, the act itself is the least of it. The main thing is the דעת. We said before on דף ט׳, we said that according to קנין, which is Rav Pappa, which we said goes in the שיטה of Abaye, holds the שטר has to be written with the דעת of the woman. So the עיקר, the דעת is here in the שטר. So that's why the Gemara answers, האי שטרא לחוד והאי שטרא לחוד. Why could you give the same person? Because after all, the דעת is there! The דעת of the אשה. And therefore, it's not a big קשיא why here both he gives. See, we

have some ראיה that they that he gives. So normally, the fact that in both cases the same person gives would be a ראיה that you're wrong! So no, that ראיה's wrong, because the act of giving is the least of it. The main thing is the דעת, and the דעת is there. So האי the words written are different, and they're written in a way which is מדעתה, so therefore that's the answer. Fregt, huh? That הכרח comes over the whole תורה כולה. No, in this ענין, I'm yeah, trying to say we see by קידושי אשה, it's a סתירה ביה וביה if Abaye holds that it's קידוש because it's not אישות, and Rav Pappa here holds, I'm just trying to say and Lichorah and here Abaye holds the סברא that you have to the opposite, it fits. Comes the Gemara and says, האי כספא לחוד והאי כספא לחוד. By the money, it's the same. What's the Gemara's קשיא, the money is the same? If you're telling me now that because we hold that Kiddushin is קנין, the act is the least, the main thing is to be מגלה, all with the דעת, so the fact that he says הרי את מקודשת, and here he הרי את מגורשת, there is a גילוי דעת in what the... is, so the כסף is different. Ay, we know the כסף itself is the same, but we're just saying now that the עיקר is the דעת, and the act of giving doesn't count. And the Gemara answers, but after all the money's the same, what does that mean? That this גילוי דעת that has to be, it has to be within the act, not from the side, not דבר מפורש, not by saying. By the

שטר, when you give the שטר, and in the שטר it says הרי את מקודשת, which was written in the שטר מדעתו, so the giving itself has a גילוי דעת of what it is. And that's enough. But by the money, על ידי you're saying, so the גילוי דעת now is something that's on the outside. That doesn't help. So now, I hope you understand the מחלוקת of Abaye and Rava, which fits to all of it. Now the piece that comes out that Yeah, because in regular שטר No, the words are written in the paper, and the paper is being given with the words. So the action is an action which has in the action there's גילוי, while in this not. Now concerning the other case, we said that the מחלוקת Rava ve-Rav Pappa, whether you need the דעת of the אשה or not, is connected to the מחלוקת Abaye and Rava here, and connected to the מחלוקת אביי ורבא בקידושין שאינן מסורין לביאה. The Rambam פסקנס over here on דף ט׳ like Rav Pappa that you do need the דעת of the woman. Why does he פסקן? I want to say like this, now that we're saying that this מחלוקת here is connected to the מחלוקת בקידושין שאינן מסורין לביאה, there's a מחלוקת Abaye and Rava. Now what's מחלו מה תמיד הלכה between Abaye and Rava? Whenever in כל הש״ס, the whole Shas, whenever there's a מחלוקת Abaye and Rava, הלכה like Rava, usually. Here it's the opposite. Here we're saying that Rava and Rav Pappa argue, and the Rambam פסקנס like Rav Papa, which I want to say is parallel to that Gemara. But

you have to remember one thing: there is an exception to the rule. Anyone who learned Bava Metzia knows יע״ל קג״ם. By יע״ל קג״ם, by six cases in the whole Shas, they probably argue 500 cases, six cases in ש״ס הלכה like Abaye. יע״ל קג״ם. The The initials are י, ע, ל, ק, ג, מ. What is the ק? קידושין שאינן מסורין לביאה. Over there halacha like Abaye. Gemara. Gemara in Bava Metzia, in a few places. Maybe even Maybe here. It's a סימן, יע״ל קג״ם. Does the Gemara here say also? Does the Gemara bring it? That this is one of the cases of יע״ל קג״ם? I don't think so. But in קידושין in in Bava Metzia, in the beginning of Bava Metzia and other places, it is, everyone. Since this is halacha like Abaye, so it comes out from that Gemara that we pasken that קידושין is kinyan. If קידושין is kinyan, we pasken like Rav Papa here. That's why the Rambam פסקנס like Rav Papa here. This fits to other cases in the Rambam where we find ראיות that he holds that the עיקר of קידושין is kinyan, and this fits to this way as well. Those that will pasken like like Rava here let's say, will obviously learn that peshat in the Gemara, and not connect it to this מחלוקת, it won't fit. I'm saying according to the Rambam, say he learns that this is the מחלוקת as we explained, and therefore according to him it comes out the ikar is kinyan. Where did the Baal HaTurim live? Romania? What's the Baal HaTurim? The Baal HaTurim, Romania or where? Europe? Where, over there? Germany or [Non-speech audio]