We'll be discussing the Gemara here on the Ketubot דף ג which happens to be a sugya that is familiar not only because of this Gemara, but the same sugya is in other places also. There are a few places in Shas that we have the same inyan. Therefore it's not something specific in Ketubot, but it's something that the Gemara talks about here in דף ג. The Gemara here brings it too because the Gemara spoke about אין אונס דף ג עמוד א׳, about אין אונס בגיטין. And the Gemara explains a certain case as we learned last time that mid'oraita a get should not be a get, as the case the Gemara explained, and the Rabbanan said that the get is a get. And the Gemara gave a reason why the Rabbanan wanted to make the get into a get, so a certain תקלה, certain problems shouldn't come out. But then the Gemara asks a קשיא, ומי איכא מידי דמדאורייתא לא הוי גט ומשום צניעותא ומשום פרוצותא שרינן אשת איש לעלמא? That is it possible that something that mid'oraita it's not a get, which means that mid'oraita she's still an אשת איש, she's still a married woman, and the Rabbanan because of the reason of צניעותא ופרוצותא, as the Gemara said before, the Rabbanan will say the get is a get, and then she's not an אשת איש? We always know that the Rabbanan are machmir to a d'oraita, and something at mid'oraita it's mutar, the Rabbanan say it's asur. But the Rabbanan don't the opposite, something at mid'oraita is asur, the Rabbanan will say mutar. In this case, mid'oraita she is an אשת איש because this גט מדאורייתא is not valid for whatever the reason is, and the Rabbanan came and said a get is a get. How's that possible? So the

Gemara answers, אין, yes, it's possible, because כל דמקדש אדעתא דרבנן מקדש. Anybody who gives kiddushin, who marries a woman and gives kiddushin, has in mind that he's doing it על דעת of the chachamim, and therefore אפקעינהו רבנן לקידושין מיניה, the Rabbanan have a right to take away the kiddushin. That means that it's almost as if a person makes a condition. When a person gives kiddushin, any any Jew that marries and gives kiddushin, the din is that by kiddushin you're allowed to make any conditions you want. We don't do it nowadays, but you're allowed to. And the din is that if the condition is fulfilled, the kiddushin is kiddushin, if not, not. In this case, it's almost as if every person who gives kiddushin makes on condition that the chachamim agree. And as Tosafot adds, and we'll talk about a little later, לכן אומרים בשעת קידושין כדת משה וישראל. That's why when you give kiddushin you say, הרי את מקודשת לי כדת משה וישראל, like the דת, the religion of Moshe and the Yidden, which means it's like the chachamim want. And therefore, if ever the chachamim decide that they don't want the kiddushin for whatever reason, they are able to say that the kiddushin is no kiddushin. So could be a person get kiddushin, and 30 years down the road, something happens that the Rabbanan for some reason want that she should not be married, so they don't say that the get is a get. If mid'oraita the get is no get, they can't make a get into a get, but they decide in such a case, we say that the קידושין למפרע, retroactive, when you gave the kiddushin was no kiddushin because we have a right now to decide that the kiddushin is no kiddushin. Just like a person would say, \"I give you kiddushin on condition that my father always agrees to the kiddushin.\" Now, 20 years down the line, the father decides, \"I don't want the kiddushin.\" So the kiddushin is not a kiddushin, like any condition, and that's exactly what happens here. Then the Gemara says, אמר ליה רבינא לרב אשי, so that way it affects kids that will be That's everything, right? So all the kids are not really kids that came through marriage. All the ביאות that he had will be ביאת זנות. We'll maybe talk about that later. Then the

Gemara says, אמר ליה רבינא לרב אשי, so Ravina said to רב אשי, תינח דקידש בכסף, that that's okay if he gave kiddushin with כסף. We know that you can mekadesh a woman in three ways, כסף, שטר, וביאה. You give her כסף, money, or something that has the value of money, שוה פרוטה, שוה כסף, or with a שטר, or with ביאה. So if you give קידושי כסף, then I understand what the chachamim did. And as Rashi says, then I understand what happened. The money that was given lechatchilah, the rabbanan turned into a מתנה. You gave it thinking it was kiddushin, and it was so far, but when the chachamim decide they don't want the kiddushin, so retroactive, that money is a מתנה. But קידש בביאה מאי איכא למימר? What happens if you gave kiddushin through ביאה? What do we say then? What happens then? What do the chachamim do? There's no money here to say that it's changed. So the Gemara says, yes, שויוה רבנן לבעילתו בעילת זנות. Yes, the rabbanan have a right to do that too. They retroactively say that the זנות, the בעילה that you made which was officially supposed to be kiddushin, we decided that we don't want the kiddushin, and since you made a condition that we agree, so automatically it's not kiddushin. Now what is it? It's a ביאת זנות. That's what the Gemara says.

Rashi explains here, just to read you Rashi, says תינח, I understand how you למימר אפקעתא, I can understand how you can take away קידושין when you מקדש בכסף, but קדש בביאה מאי אפקעתא דממונא איכא למימר? What kind of taking back can you say, because it's ביאה, what happens to the ביאה? And the Gemara answers, אי קדש בביאה בעית למיעקר קידושין למפרע מה תהא על ביאתו? If you say if he was מקדש בביאה and you say the kiddushin is not kiddushin, what's going to happen to the ביאה? So the Gemara answers, שויוה רבנן לבעילתו למפרע על ידי גט שהוא מדבריהם בעילת זנות. But the Rabbanan, yes, they go back and they say זנות, and the Rabbanan are allowed to do it. יש בהם כח לעשות, the Rabbanan could do it. Why could they do it? שהרי הוא תלה בהן, because after all, when he gave the kiddushin, he made it depend on their דעת, just like he would make any other condition. What happens if a person is מקדש בביאה, and makes a condition? I'm מקדש you בביאה on condition that this and this guy agrees. Comes to this guy, he doesn't agree. The kiddushin is no kiddushin. What happens to the ביאה? הביאה is זנות. That's exactly what happens here. This is the way Rashi learns. Then Rashi says שמעתי כל רבותי מפרשים, when we get to Rashi brings that his רביים had a different פשט. And this is Rashi here and Rashi in Gittin, it's a famous thing. שיטה of רבותיו של רש״י. They come with a new pshat. What's bothering them is this part: What did the Gemara mean when the Gemara asked, \"When you're מקדש with כסף, I understand what happens, but if you're מקדש בביאה, how could you do it there too?\" And the Gemara answers, \"They make it הביאה זנות.\" So what bothered them is, what did the Gemara think would be the difference between קידושי כסף and קידושי ביאה? Why through קידושי כסף the Gemara understood that you could go למפרע and make the קידושין not קידושין, but קידושי ביאה, why didn't the Gemara understand קידושי ביאה? So Rashi is like this: שמעתי כל רבותי מפרשים, I hear all my rebbeim saying like this, דקדיש בכספא, why is קידושי כסף we understand why you could do it, דקידושי דרבנן נינהו. Because קידושי כסף is only מדרבנן. And therefore, since it's מדרבנן, the רבנן have a right on their own din. Since the קידושין originally is מדרבנן, so the רבנן could come and say, \"Our קידושין, we decide there's no קידושין.\" But קידושי ביאה, which is מדאורייתא, that's how they say, קידושי ביאה is מדאורייתא. What could the רבנן do to a דאורייתא? That's how they learn the kushya. זאגט רש״י, ואי אפשר לומר כן. I can't say they're wrong. Rashi here, Rashi in גיטין is even sharper than here, it says, \"I can't be. חדא number one, the גזירה שוה, היא קיחה קיחה means they're Ephron. How do we know that you could be מקדש בכסף? So the Gemara in Kiddushin says, it says by קידושין כי יקח איש אשה, when you will take a woman. And the Gemara says there's another פסוק that says כי יקח and it says כסף, also the קח ממני. And there it says כסף. By Ephron it says the word קיחה, קח, and it says the word כסף. So the Gemara learns out the גזירה שוה that you could be מקדש בכסף. Since we learned out the גזירה שוה, כל הלומד מגזירה שוה כמו שכתוב מפורש הוא לכל דבר. If it's a גזירה שוה, it's like it says in the Torah. In other words, anything that's learned out with a גזירה שוה, or any one of the ways the חכמים learn out, that's a דין דאורייתא, that's not a דרבנן. So since קידושי כסף is from a גזירה שוה, it's דאורייתא. So how in the world do they say it's דרבנן? ועוד another קושיא, אי דרבנן נינהו, if קידושי כסף דרבנן, היכי סקלינן עלייהו? How could you kill somebody? If a woman who was became married through כסף and later she's מזנה, you would kill her because she's an אשת איש. How is she an אשת איש? דרבנן? So being married מדרבנן you could kill? Where did you find it? ומביאין חולין לעזרה על שגגתה? And also you would bring if a person is מזנה בשוגג, what's the דין? You have to bring a קרבן. But if it's really not really a marriage, it's only מדרבנן, so the קרבן is not really a קרבן, so it's חולין. You're not allowed to bring חולין into the into the בית המקדש, it's חולין בעזרה. So Rashi says, then he has other kushyot, but I don't want to because it's going to be a different There's another part to the Rashi לגבי the terutz, but I don't want to get into that, because that's a different inyan. This is what רבותיו של רש״י learn. And then here Rashi has this kushya. Rashi in in in Gittin says the same thing and then it goes with more באריכות. But Rashi says, \"How could it be that they should learn like that?\" What we have to do here is try to answer, what is the sevara of רבותיו של רש״י? What do רבותיו של רש״י learn? How do how do they learn, after all, how could they say it's קידושי כסף? Now be'emet what we could say, and some say it more or less, a little bit like I'm going to say now, but but I'm going to say a little bit different. And this is based on the Rambam. Yeah. This is something that Ketav Sofer says and there's a Sefer HaKovetz on the Rambam says this. It's like this. The Rambam is a famous Rambam. The Rambam says in the beginning of Hilchot Ishut like this: I'll read you the Rambam. First he starts off beginning of Ishut פרק א׳, he says קודם מתן before מתן תורה you would meet a woman How would you get married? You would meet a woman in the street, if you decide to marry her and she decides We we spoke about this Rambam, but not in this inyan, לגבי the דין חופה. Anyway, כיון שניתנה תורה, נתנה תורה נצטוו ישראל, when the Torah was given the אידן were commanded, אם ירצה איש לישא אשה, if you want to marry, יקנה תחלה בפניהם, you have to first make a kinyan. And then she could be your wife, שנאמר כי יקח איש אשה ובאה עליה. Then, next halacha the Rambam says, וליקוחין אלו מצות עשה של תורה. And the fact that you have to give kiddushin is a mitzvah of the Torah, you have The Torah says so. ובאחד משלשה דברים אלו האשה נקנית: one of the three ways you could be קונה, בכסף, בשטר ובביאה. And then the Rambam says, בביאה ובשטר מהתורה, ובכסף מדברי סופרים. So the Rambam says this, that ביאה and שטר from the Torah, to be מקדש a woman בכסף is מדרבנן. He doesn't say מדרבנן, he says מדברי סופרים. That's what he says here. A different place, פרק ג׳ הלכה כ׳, I'll read you another Rambam. And there there are two girsaot in the Rambam already. המקדש בביאה, this is הלכה כ׳ in פרק ג׳, הרי אלו קדושי תורה. המקדש בביאה is קידושי דאורייתא. וכן מתקדשת בשטר מן התורה. And he says where you know it from, ספר כריתות. אבל הכסף מדברי סופרים. Again he repeats himself. But then you see אפילו in this Rambam you have a print here and it says in parentheses, a different girsa. Different girsa is, וכן דין הכסף דין תורה. ופירושם מדברי סופרים. But if the דין כסף is דאורייתא, but it's pshat is מדברי סופרים. שנאמר כי יקח איש אשה, he says, because it says כי יקח. ואמרו חכמים, the Chachamim said, לקוחין אלו יהיו בכסף, this should be בכסף, שנאמר נתתי כסף השדה קח ממני. What is the pshat in the Rambam? We have the same problem with the Rambam as Rosh had with the, it seems like with the Rav Hai Gaon. How could Rambam say it's דרבנן when we learn it's a gezeirah shavah? So the מפרשים on the Rambam, Kesef Mishneh, etc., all talk about it. And they all basically say one nekudah: that what the Rambam means to say is, the Rambam doesn't hold it's דרבנן. The Rambam follows a rule that he mentioned in Sefer HaMitzvot that any לימוד that's learned out from a one of the י״ג מדות שהתורה נדרשת, one of the thirteen ways, we can call it דברי סופרים. We can call it מדרבנן. Not דרבנן, but דברי סופרים, because after all, who's the one that learned it? The חכמים taught it us, so he calls it דברי סופרים. And that's what they say the Rambam means. In other words, the Rambam does not mean it's דרבנן, it's דאורייתא, but he refers to it as דברי סופרים. The other two are more clear in the Torah: יקח, that, it says about get, so שטר is clear, ביאה is definitely clear because it says כי יקח איש אשה ובעלה, which is ביאה, so that's clear. How do you know you can do it with כסף? That's already a גזירה שוה, and a גזירה שוה is learned out from the רבנן, that's called דברי, but it's really מדאורייתא. It actually fits with the second גירסא in the next in the Rambam even better, because the Rambam says: וכן דין הכסף דין תורה, ופירושם מדברי סופרים. Okay. So, we

see פשט in the Rambam that the Rambam means according to them, it means it's actually דאורייתא learned out. We could say that the רבותיו של רש״י learned the same way. That's what they meant. They never meant that it's מדרבנן. They meant that it's מדאורייתא, but they called it דברי דרבנן or דברי סופרים because it's learned out. Now, what kind of effect will it have on our Gemara? What's the difference? Sof kol sof, they're trying to explain that the Gemara says meila when you're מקדש בכסף, we understand why the rabbanan could fiddle around, could have a say. But if you're מקדש בביאה, we don't. So now we're saying that they also hold kesef is de'oraita. So what's the pshat according to them in the Gemara? If kesef is de'oraita, so still how could kesef how could the rabbanan mix? So I'll tell you what the pshat is. The Gemara says like this: Why do we say that a that a person when we why do we say the rabbanan could do it? Because a person is מקדש על דעת דרבנן. What we're saying here is, the Gemara is asking: Maybe when is a person מקדש על דעת דרבנן? When the whole kiddushin he only knows it's de'oraita, but how does he know about it? The rabbanan. You come to a guy and ask him, \"You're מקדש בכסף. Who told you you can מקדש בכסף?\" The rabbanan. \"Ah, so you're relying on the rabbanan?\" So then we assume he's מקדש על דעת of the rabbanan. But קדש בביאה, not that because it is derabbanan, it is de'oraita, but the rabbanan are the ones that told you about it, they're the ones that learned it out, so there you're מקדש על דעת דרבנן. אבל קדש בביאה, since bi'ah, you can say, you ask him, \"How are you How do you know you're מקדש בביאה? How do I know? I opened the chumash, I looked in, I saw the Torah says כי יקח איש אשה ובעלה. So I don't need the rabbanan to tell me what קידושי ביאה is.\" So here the Gemara asks: Maybe קדש בביאה, he's not מקדש על דעת דרבנן. So how could the rabbanan mix in? The rabbanan could only mix in because you're מקדש על דעת, but the rabbanan otherwise can't say. So you're only if you're מקדש על דעת. In this case, who says you're מקדש על דעת? And what's the Gemara's answer? Yeah, even in a case where a person is מקדש בביאה, he also מקדש על דעת דרבנן. Even there. But the hava amina, at least we understand what the Gemara's hava amina was. I don't understand Rashi's question then. Oh, Rashi didn't learn like that then, obviously, we're trying to answer. Rashi learned Yeah, a different peshat. We're trying to say that's not what they meant. Right, but we have to say somehow. In order to answer, we have to say that if we say that it's exactly what Rashi meant, then Rashi has a good kashya. We're trying to answer it. So the terutz that we could answer, and bichlal is this this so far this vort is written close K'tav Sofer, not exactly the diyuk, but exact more or less, that this is the vort: that קדש בכסף he's מקדש על דעת, and this is what the Rabbanan this is what they meant. But they meant like the Rambam. The only thing in the Rambam גופא, we have to go a little bit further to understand peshat in the Rambam. If we're going to say that the Rambam meant what they say, and they say, I mean the Kesef Mishneh and the and the Maggid Mishneh, and they're all, all the mefarshim. Even though Kapach who gave out the Rambam, he screams at them and says that they, well he found כתבים and it's not exactly the way they're saying and it's not whatever, that the Rambam טאקע meant is דרבנן, he brings right from the, he says a whole, he bichlal had this breitkeit that he was able, he didn't care who it was. The great acharon, Kesef Mishneh, Rabbi Yosef, he didn't care what he wrote or he. Anyway, but this is what they learned. But if you learn the way they say, it makes sense, because the Rambam does say just a klal that you could call them דברי סופרים. The question is only, why out of all places in the whole all the halachot did the Rambam decide over here to call it דברי סופרים? I'm sure there are thousands of halachot in Rambam which are learned out from גזירה שוה, and yet, the Rambam doesn't decide to say, \"You know, they're דברי סופרים.\" Why over here all of a sudden he decided to call it דברי סופרים? סופרים, and the reason why you're able to because, after all, it's learned out from the Chachamim? Why is that here? Obviously the Rambam wants to tell us here also. And when we understand what the Rambam, what we could say pshat in the Rambam, it'll add even more to the pshat in our Gemara, that it's more even derabbanan that the person, more sevara that the person relies on derabbanan, because we'll see it's not stam because it's a learned out מן המדרש, it's a little bit more than that, what we could say. So what could we say here? So let's get to a different sugya altogether, a few different places, but the the guiding, the mahalach will be the one that we're going to try to see

here. There's a Tosafot in Avodah Zarah, דף כ\"ב, that talks about melacha on Chol Hamoed, doing melacha on Chol Hamoed, whether it's de'oraita or derabbanan. So being a machloket, in Tosafot there's a machloket, some say that mide'oraita, learn out from pesukim you can't do a melacha, and some say it's derabbanan. In Shulchan Aruch, in סימן תק\"ל, the Mechaber says that מלאכות בחול המועד, some are mutar, some are asur. And that's the true, we know that. It's not like ממש Yom Tov you can't do any melacha. Certain melachot you could do, certain melachot you can't do. The Rema on the Shulchan Aruch says that which could you, which can't you? Says those melachot that derabbanan felt to be matir, those are the ones that you're allowed. That's what he says. Now, the Machatzit HaShekel So at first glance you might think that the Rema learns that it's derabbanan. That's what he says! He says those that the rabbanan decided to be matir, those that you're allowed. Now, if it's a de'oraita, then what do you mean what the rabbanan decided to be matir? So it's obviously derabbanan. So seems like the Rema will go according to the shita that it's derabbanan. Comes the Machatzit HaShekel there, and Machatzit HaShekel says, \"No, that's not the pshat.\" If that should be the pshat, in other words, the Rema should have written those מלאכות that the rabbanan decided to asar are assur. That's the pshat. If it's only derabbanan, it means de'oraita there's no איסור מלאכה. There are those that the rabbanan, certain things the rabbanan decided to asar, they asar'ed it. So what's the pshat those that they decided to be matir? So it can't be that that's איסור דרבנן. So he says the pshat is like this, and then he quotes the Beit Yosef, but look how beautiful a pshat. This is one of those

things, a modern thing which we don't find usually, that the תורה אסר מלאכה on חול המועד, but מסרו לחכמים to decide which is assur, which is mutar. The Torah gave it over to the חכמים to decide which you're allowed, which not. So those that the חכמים decided, they felt that you're mutar, the Torah said, whatever you'll decide, that's what we want. It's a interesting kind of thing, but this is what he says the Rema learns, that there is such a thing. So it comes out if you ask somebody, is a מלאכה בחול המועד דאורייתא When you we say you're not allowed to do this and this מלאכה, you're not allowed to write חול המועד, is it d'oraita or derabbanan? Whatever you'll answer you'll be right. If you'll answer it's d'oraita, yes, because d'oraita said that, but if you'll answer derabbanan, it's also true. In other words, it's derabbanan decided that this is asur, and the Torah said, whatever you'll decide is good with me. That's what the Oibershter wants. So it's a kind of thing which is d'oraita, but the derabbanan decided. And I think he quotes the Beit Yosef, but the Beit Yosef brings an example to such a thing. The example is from a Ran in the beginning of Yoma. The

Ran in the beginning of Yoma talks about the עינויים on Yom Kippur. Yom Kippur we know, you're not allowed to eat, you're not allowed to drink, and then there are more things, all five עינויים. You can't wear shoes, and you can't, סיכה, רחיצה, תשמיש המטה, you can't do. These things, are they d'oraita or are they derabbanan? So there are שיטות that they are derabbanan, that mid'oraita you only can't eat, you can't drink, and the rest of the things are only derabbanan. There are shitot d'oraita. The Ran says a sevara like this. The the pasuk says, \"ועניתם את נפשתיכם\", inui, and the Gemara learns out that the word inui really refers to eating and drinking. It says \"ויענך וירעיבך\", so we know being hungry is called inui. Achilah u'shtiyah, same thing. The other things are not really real dinim d'oraita, but he says, sounds like it's derabbanan. The end he says it's not like that, but the sevara he says is the Torah wrote it in such a לשון to tell you that the Torah could have said don't eat, like it says, \"לא תאכל כל נבלה\". The Torah wrote it in such a lashon to tell you that I want more things of you to have עינוי, but I'm not telling you what. Let the rabbanan decide what they feel is proper for an עינוי, for suffering, that's what I want you to do. So this is one of those examples that if you'll what the איסור עינוי of the other עינויים, is it de'oraita the rabbanan, so he says is de'oraita. The Torah said, I want some more עינויים, but what עינויים is derabbanan. So the rabbanan decided that whatever they decide becomes de'oraita. We find more examples to such a concept. Because it's not It sounds strange, but we do find it in other places. We

find in the Rambam in הלכות פס- הלכות חמץ ומצה. We know by הלכות חמ- by by Pesach, by chametz, בל יראה ובל ימצא. So the Gemara says there are two ways you could destroy your chametz med'oraita. One way is מדאורייתא בביטול בעלמא סגי. You're mevatel, say כל חמירא and you decide that you nullify the chametz, it's בטל and you could have the chametz all around your house. And you're not עובר בל יראה ובל ימצא, you're not over for having the chametz. Another way is actually תשביתו, to take it and destroy it. The way the Kesef Mishneh learns pshat in Rambam, cuz there are two girsaot in that Rambam and it's a whole shmuess in the Rambam. But the way it comes out, cuz the Rambam doesn't say like it it's not clear because there's a first כתב of the Rambam, another כתב. But he says a sevara like this, that the Torah, it seems like the Torah gave two ways and left it up to the chachamim to decide exactly which things you need bitul and which things you need to be מבער. And the Torah didn't say. And more details along those lines בנוגע תש- ביעור and bitul. And when you dis- when the chachamim decided this is what the Torah wanted, so it's a דין מצד התורה. So here again we have an example. There's another example, why am I trying so much examples? Because to say such a sevara if it's just sevara of yours, eh you don't- but if you see it in more places, you see that there is such a concept. We

find in Rambam הלכות שבת, the Rambam after he talks about all the מלאכות, I think it's פרק כ', I'm not sure. He says then then besides all the מלאכות, the Torah says תשבות, you have to rest. So the chachamim added a lot of שבותים. A lot of things that you're not allowed to do it מדאורייתא, it's not a melacha, but you're not allowed to do. So you have a Kesef Mishneh there, and he has a safek pshat in Rambam. He whole he discusses pshat. So the Lechem Mishneh explains what did the Rambam, what is the safek of the Kesef Mishneh, what's he thinking about? So he says that Kesef Mishneh is thinking whether all these שבותים are דאורייתא or not. Since the Torah says תשבות, which means besides לא תעשה כל מלאכה, don't do melacha, it says תשבות, which means you have to rest and it means add more things, are they דאורייתא? Now, everyone knows that the Torah doesn't say all these muktzeh's and all these things, but what the pshat is, the Torah said that besides these specific ל\"ט מלאכות directly on, Torah says I want you to rest besides that. What exactly? Not telling you. Let the chachamim look into it to see what they feel is called work, what makes it, and when the chachamim decide that this is part of of תשבות, then it's assur and it's assur de'oraita. So he has a safek. He has a safek whether it's like this or like that. Not a safek, that's a safek pshat in Rambam. In other words, he does follow that there is such a thing, that this could be. He just says this is what the Rambam means. The Minchat Chinuch in מצוה ל\"ב, where he talks about Shabbos, says b'feirush this way. He doesn't even have a safek. He says clearly that what's the inyan of the שבותים on Shabbos, the inyan is that the Rabbanan got the right from- not the right, the Torah wanted to have more איסורים, and the Rabbanan were the ones who decided it, but really you're עובר on an issur de'oraita. Okay, in this case it's hard to say that all the שבותים, but that's what they say. אבל בעצם from the פסוק from the Torah, so the Torah decided. Based on such a gang, on such a way, לכאורה you could say, this, see the other thing I said in pshat in Rambam is whatever before, but this, I didn't see it, but I think you can say this: that this is what the Rambam meant קידושי כסף. קידושי כסף is not דרבנן. The Rambam is telling us a new thing. קידושי כסף is the Torah said that there is another way that you could be מקדש. I'm not not I'm not telling you how, and that and they left it to the Rabbanan to decide what which way can you do it. What other thing can happen and the Rabbanan decided that this is done through כסף. And it fits to the lashon,

now I'll explain the first in the the second girsa in the Rambam on פרק ג' הלכה כ', וכן דין הכסף דין תורה ופירושו מדברי סופרים. What does that mean? I'm saying this is what it means: It's a דין תורה, but who was מפרש it? Not who explained it, because every, every דין in the Rambam the Rabbanan explained, in the Torah you'll find nothing. The פירושו means they came and they said this is what it is. And this is emet connected to how you learn peshat in the Gemara in Kiddushin. I'll explain what I mean. In Gemara in Kiddushin, we have two places, right in the beginning of the Gemara, where the Gemara learns out קידושי כסף. Right on דף ב' עמוד א', right at the beginning of the Gemara, the Gemara starts off on the real thing, then it says כסף מנלן? And the Gemara quotes פסוק, שנאמר: כי יקח איש אשה ובעלה, And then it says, וגמרינן קיחה קיחה משדה עפרון. We learn out קיחה. What's the טייטש קיחה קיחה? That's an expression of a גזירה שוה. Here it says קיחה, there it says קיחה, it's a גזירה שוה. Just, just hold on a minute. Let me bring a Gemara Kiddushin. Yeah, I'll I'll Let me read the words exactly. It makes it sound more real. Or emet. Here. Kiddushin on דף ב here, on the beginning. Here. כסף מנלן? גמר קיחה קיחה משדה עפרון. And the לשון always גמר קיחה קיחה or a lot of times it says גמר הויה הויה, whatever, it's a גזירה שוה. And a גזירה שוה is one of the thirteen מדות, and it's a it's a דין דאורייתא. כתיב הכא כי יקח איש אשה, וכתיב התם נתתי כסף השדה קח ממני. Okay, so everybody knows. Then on דף ג עמוד ב, no, on דף ד עמוד ב, the Gemara again goes into this. תניא, כי יקח איש אשה ובעלה והיה אם לא תמצא חן בעיניו כי מצא בה, אין קיחה אלא בכסף. Why doesn't it say גמר קיחה קיחה משדה עפרון? It says כי יקח and אין קיחה אלא בכסף. וכן הוא אומר, as it says, נתתי כסף השדה קח ממני. But lichorah, it seems here that there's a difference in the way these two Gemarot learn. The way the Gemara says it on דף ב, it's an official regular gezerah shavah. It's a regular gezerah shavah, it's a it's In other words, the Torah told us כסף, but how did the Torah tell, like any gezerah shavah, the Torah meant to tell me, the Torah didn't specify every single halachah, because then you would have, the Torah would be this big, so it gave us rules, gezerot shavot, codes how to learn out. But that's that's a normal case of de'oraita, so the Torah wanted to tell us כסף. That's if you say the לשון גמר קיחה קיחה. But here, all it says, אין קיחה אלא בכסף. It says, the pasuk says כי יקח, אין קיחה אלא בכסף, וכן הוא אומר נתתי כסף השדה. So what we could learn here is that this Gemara means differently. Says כי יקח, כי יקח means to take. So the Torah is telling us that besides it says ובעלה, and besides we learn out a גזירה שוה from יצאה והיתה לגבי שטר, בעלה is ביאה, שטר, קיחה, take! Take, there's some other taking. Doesn't say what. Came the Rabbanan and they said, well, we we let you do whatever take. Came the Rabbanan and they sat down to think. The coming, the Torah gave us a choice, a a berirah, and we have now the the decision. What should we decide? So they thought about it. Which thing would be the best way of taking? כסף would be the best way of taking. That's what he says here, אין קיחה אלא בכסף, וכן הוא אומר נתתי כסף As we find, since we find קיחה by שדה עפרון, so we find here too. So the Rabbanan decided that this is it, and therefore this is a din de'oraita. But the Rabbanan were the ones that got the the choice, the the koach to decide. So it seems like this is one beraisa or yeah, whatever this the Gemara brings down. This is another one. So there are two ways actually act seems in the Gemara, we wouldn't say a machlokes, but two ways, two approaches to this inyan of how we know קידושי כסף. One is that this is lechatchila a regular דין דאורייתא. One, I mean this is the way the Rambam could learn, you don't have to say that. I mean, you could learn the Gemara that the Gemara here on דף ד means the same thing as there, it just doesn't use that lashon. But we're trying to explain the Rambam, so we're saying, but we look in the Rambam we'll learn that it's different leshonot, and since it's different leshonot, so lichora you could learn as two different ways, and for some reason, I don't know, the Rambam feel that this is the ikar, maybe because it's later, whatever, whoever says it, but the Rambam has his ראיות that this Gemara is the halacha, or this is the one, the ikar way, not the way it's there. And that makes the Rambam come to a decision that קידושי כסף is מדברי סופרים. So now we understand what the Rambam means. That the Rambam when he says קידושי כסף is מדברי סופרים, he does not mean it's a דין דרבנן. He means it's a דין דאורייתא. He calls it דברי סופרים because this is one of the few things. See, the way the Kesef Mishneh learns, there are thousands of things that learn out gezeirah shavah, so why would you decide to call this סופרים? But this this is seldom that we find such a concept that the Torah, it's a דין דאורייתא, and that the Rabbanan decided, had the right to decide. So where this in this case, he writes it. So the Rambam writes that that's why he writes over there two are מן התורה, one is מדברי סופרים, meaning מן התורה, but the Rabbanan decided. That's why he writes here also, whichever girsa, whether we have the גירסא אבל הכסף מדברי סופרים, or the גירסא וכן דין הכסף דין תורה ופירושו מדברי סופרים. But what he means is, it's a din, and he especially makes it, it's a דין תורה. Wait, so when it's a גזירה שוה, do the רבנן have a have a choice? No, according to this, not a גזירה שוה. Oh, it's not a That's what I'm saying. According to this Gemara, the Gemara does not mention here the word גזירה שוה. It doesn't say קיחה קיחה. I'm saying you have two different Gemarot. That Gemara holds it's a גזירה שוה, this Gemara not. That's a machloket. That's a machloket, it's or two yeah, machloket. Right, if it's a גזירה שוה, it's a de'oraita outright. It's not up to them. They don't have a choice. You don't have a choice, right, right. I'm talking about Well, all the גזירות שוות we got from Yeah, so And so you could say that the one that learns there will hold like גזירה שוה there, and we find that in other places also. But there is such a thing. There is a certain number and we can't add גזירות שוות. גזירה שוה was a kabbalah from This one had a kabbalah from his Rebbe, this one didn't. But if he didn't have here, he must have had someplace else where the other one didn't. That's how it always works out in such a case. But l'foal, if you learn like this, we understand why the Rambam does this. Now let's get back to our Gemara. Let's say that our Gemara, it's the the רבותיו של רש״י, learns the same way. Wait, so our question was not the first question, the second question: How do we learn out כסף? Right, right. So that one they say מדברי סופרים. The question was that Rashi asks and that he asks on the Rambam, how could it be derabbanan? How could you say derabbanan, it's a גזירה שוה? So we're saying now that say der Rambam, say Rashi, רבותיו של רש״י did not mean, as it seemed, derabbanan. It has to be de'oraita, and it is a דין דאורייתא. But why do we call it derabbanan? Because it's not like a regular גזירה שוה, because the Torah was מוסר לחכמים to decide whether this is a קידושין that you could use or not, what קידושין you could, they decide. And you gave as an example Many! שבותים, let's say. So So muktzeh let's say Yeah, according to one sevara, it would be Yeah, it's a derabbanan said it, but you might be mideoraita. Yeah? That you're עובר מדאורייתא. And the same thing here, לפועל this is a דין דאורייתא. So now, going along the logic that we used in the first peshat in רבותיו, we could use the same logic here, but it's even better! That's what the Gemara means, according to רבותיו: תינח דקדיש בכספא, מילא if you're מקדש בכסף, so we said before, so what's the peshat? So then since how do you know that you can מקדש בכסף, because the רבנן learned it out. Now I'm saying even more! You have to rely on the רבנן! Before, you could say the רבנן learned it out because they had a גזירה שוה. I also have a קבלה of a גזירה שוה, but this is no one learned this out, the רבנן made it up! It's a deoraita, but they made it up! So he said, \"מילא when you're מקדש בכסף, when it's a דין that the רבנן made up, so you have to be מקדש אדעתא דרבנן, you have no two ways about it! If you don't rely on the רבנן, you בכלל have no קידושי כסף!\" So then you understand that it's מקדש אדעתא דרבנן, and therefore we say that they, when they want to come מבטל, they get involved. But you're מקדש בביאה, where ביאה it's not like that. ביאה is outright, it's deoraita, plus it's clearly written in the תורה, מאי איכא למימר? And the answer is אפילו הכי. This is the way רבותיו we could say that רבותיו של רש״י would learn. What is this big wrong with this peshat? So לכאורה you could learn this peshat. Obviously, you have to find out what's צד. See,

Rashi doesn't like to learn like Rabbosav in his simple way. He asks, \"How could you say it's דרבנן?\" But obviously he doesn't like this pshat either, because if he liked this pshat, he would not ask the kushya. So we have to find that Rashi doesn't agree, can't say that this is the pshat in the Gemara. So I want to say, לאו דוקא רש״י disagrees with the whole idea of קידושי דרבנן. In other words, could be Rashi will hold like that פרט, but he can't hold this He said maybe you would be right in that פרט, even though Rashi used the word גזירה שוה, but he wants to say your whole this type of pshat has a חסרון, has a problem, and that's why there would be a sevara not to use this pshat. This whole pshat, besides the the whole idea that it's קידושין that the רבנן made up, there's one point here that we're assuming in the hava amina of the Gemara that if it's a קידושין that the רבנן made, then you're מקדש אדעתיה. If it's a קידושין that not, you're not מקדש אדעתיה. The question is, when the Gemara says, \"כל המקדש אדעתא דרבנן מקדש\", does it mean that you actually every individual, it's up to him to decide whether he's מקדש על דעת דרבנן or not? This whole thing, the whole pshat we're saying now, only fits if we assume like the individuals. Then this individual, the Gemara asks, \"Who says he's מקדש אדעתא דרבנן?\" But there is a sevara that it doesn't depend on individual, it is a general thing that קידושין is always אדעתא דרבנן. So do we have a choice? And as if Yeah, you don't have a choice. It's a מחלוקת, it's not so pashut. The Ritva in our Gemara, in Kesubos דף ג׳, טאקע says that, that it's I don't remember the לשון there, לא ניתנה לדעת כל אדם. It's a general thing. Actually, the Gemara's לשון is כל דמקדש אדעתא דרבנן מקדש. Everyone! Now, it seems someone has to say that Tosafot does not learn like that. I mentioned it in the beginning. Tosafot says, \"לכן אומרים בשעת קידושין כדת משה וישראל.\" That's why you say בשעת קידושין. What would be if a person would not say בשעת קידושין כדת משה וישראל? Maybe taka not. In other words, according to Tosafot, it seems that it's up to the person that if he says כדת משה וישראל and he is doing it על דעת דרבנן, did it like that. So according to that sevara, you could say the Gemara would have a hava amina in case where you're מקדש קידושי כסף, maybe the guy didn't mean it, and we have the whole discussion whether here or not. But if we're going to learn like the Ritva that it's not up to everyone's discussion, so what kind of hava amina is this? If it's kiddushin, kiddushin is an integral part of kiddushin, it's מקדש אדעתא דרבנן. And it seems that Rashi learns like that. The ראיה, some of the ראיות that Rashi learns like that, this ענין of כל דמקדש אדעתא דרבנן מקדש, ואפקעינהו רבנן לקידושין מיניה is not the only place in Shas. It's a few places: here; it's in Gittin דף ל״ג; it's in Bava Batra דף מ״ח; and in Yevamot דף ק״י. In the two places, סיי in Yevamot and סיי in in Bava Batra, the guy who the רבנן said that his kiddushin is is is למפרע no good did things against the חכמים. The

case of Gittin, I'll just tell you in short the cases. In Gittin the case is if someone sent a get and then he was מבטל the get in in in the front of a beit din, not in front of the שליח, so then we say that. That's one case. The case in Bava Batra is תליוה וקידש, if someone forces a woman to take kiddushin, forces her. Now, מצד הדין, she should be מקודשת, the Gemara says, just like the Gemara says if you force somebody to sell you something, you force him, and he sells you, the sale is a sale, אגב אונסיה גמר ומקני, because you forced him and he had no way to get out of the force, so he agreed, but לפועל he agreed, so the so the מקח, the sale is a sale. So the Gemara says the same thing should be if you force a woman to sell herself, to be מקנה herself to you, to be מקדש, the din is she will be מקודשת. And the Gemara says it's not. Why? אפקעינהו רבנן לקידושין מיניה. כל דמקדש אדעתא דרבנן מקדש, it doesn't say that לשון the whole thing, אפקעינהו רבנן לקידושין מיניה, the Rabbanan took away the Kiddushin. And the Gemara says why did the Rabbanan decide to take away the Kiddushin? הוא עשה שלא כהוגן, והם עשו שלא

כהוגן. He did something terrible, he did something not not good, the Rabbanan said to him we're going to do the same thing to you, we're going to show you. Then there's a case in Yevamos. The case is if a woman, a a girl was נתקדשה to a man by herself. Like this, the din is a קטנה cannot get Kiddushin by herself, only her father could take her Kiddushin. If she has no father, then מדרבנן there is a din of Kiddushin that the mother could, and that's why then you don't even need a get, all you need is מיאון. But the Gemara says that if after she became a גדולה, and he had ביאה with her, then מדאורייתא it becomes a Kiddushin. And the Gemara tells a story that somebody had this happen that before, I think this is exact the story, if it's not one of these, when she was a גדולה, before he had ביאה with her, someone came וחטפה אריין and gave her Kiddushin, was מקדש her. So lichorah, since מדאורייתא she wasn't מקודשת, the whole Kiddushin, so she should be מקודשת. The Gemara says no, אפקעינהו רבנן לקידושין מיניה, right away. Now these last two cases are cases where the guy did something wrong. So this guy is not so, such a great guy to do what the Rabbanan want him to do. So who says he's מקדש אדעתא דרבנן? Even more so, you think he wouldn't want it. He wouldn't want it! Yeah, he wanted to finish not! And nevertheless we say. Now it's not so pashut. In there, let's take a look. I think it's below over there, that's what Tosafos says. A different part. And there's It's like a machloket Rashi Tosafos. יש מהראשונים there. So Rashi is in Yevamos. Here in דף מ״ח עמוד ב׳, here Tosafos says here, this is a case where the guy forced her, Tosafos says, הכא לא קאמר כל דמקדש אדעתא דרבנן מקדש.

Look in the Gemara, the guy gave קידושין by force, באשה ודאי קידושין לא הוו. If he forced a woman to קידושין, by ממון, by sale, it's a sale, but קידושין not, because הוא עשה שלא כהוגן, לפיכך עשו עמו שלא כהוגן, ואפקעינהו רבנן לקידושין מיניה. The same thing, אמר ליה רבינא לרב אשי תינח קדיש בכספא, ביאה מאי? Yevamos goes and explains things. But Tosafos: הכא, here the Gemara did not say כל דמקדש אדעתא דרבנן מקדש. וכן בפרק בית שמאי ביבמות דף ק״י, גבי עובדא דנרש דקדשה כשהיא קטנה וגדלה, the whole story there, the Gemara doesn't say it, כי דאמר בריש כתובות ובשולח. So he says, משום דהכא ובפרק בית שמאי לא קדש אדעתא דרבנן. He says what do you mean he's מקדש אדעתא דרבנן? How could you say it? כי דאמר, like the Gemara says clearly, הוא עשה שלא כהוגן. So then how could If that's the case, if he didn't do it, so how could they take away the קידושין? So Tosafos says you must say a different reason the Gemara holds here, אלא כלומר דסברי הכא יש כח ביד חכמים לעקור דבר מן התורה. Different thing, the Rabbanan have a right to go against the Torah. That's a different story. They have a difference, a different kind of altogether. A פשט מדאורייתא, the Rabbanan are allowed to go. That's all. This is the way. So Tosafos learns that סיי here and סיי there, it's not because he's not because of אדעתא דרבנן. But what does the Rashbam say here? He brings, he says the Gemara: ובמקום אחר מפרש. The Rashbam says that in another place the Gemara explains כל דמקדש אדעתא דרבנן מקדש, שהרי בדעת חכמים תלה, והם אינם חפצים בקידושין, they don't want Kiddushin.

What do you mean בדעת חכמים תלה, he put it on the חכמים? He didn't put it on the חכמים, תוספות says it befeirush. So we see the Rashbam hold. But the Rashbam is not such a re'aya, because we're we're trying to figure about Rashi and that's the Rashbam. But if you look in in in Yevamot דף ק״י, there you see in Rashi Rosh says the same thing. Yevamot was a case with what? With with when the קטנה that became a גדולה, and he went and gave her Kiddushin, gekhapt derayn. So here when the Gemara says a story here that the guy, yeah, you get the story here, אמר רב פפא בנארש מנסבין נשי בהודרא? רב אשי אמר הוא עשה שלא כהוגן, לפיכך עשו שלא כהוגן, ואפקעינהו רבנן לקידושין מיניה. It doesn't say in the גמרא כל המקדש אדעתא דרבנן מקדש. So Rashi says here, right here, look, ואפקעינהו לקידושין מיניה דכל המקדש תלי ליה בדעת חכמים. Because you תלי חכמים. And Tosafot here says, here Tosafot is not clear, מספקא ליה. See, Tosafot in Bava Batra, clearly, this is not because you're מקדש אדעתא דחכמים. Here Tosafot is מספקא ליה that he has a ספק אי טעמא דאפקעינהו משום דכל המקדש אדעתא דרבנן מקדש, אי משום דיש כח ביד חכמים לעקור דבר מן התורה. מדלא הזכיר כאן Since the Gemara doesn't mention כמו דהזכיר בכל מקום like in another place כל המקדש אדעתא דרבנן מקדש. So Tosafot here is a safek, over there Tosafot says for sure not. Rashi makes no ma'asiyos, Rashi says דהמקדש תלי ליה בדעת חכמים הוא. So it seems to me like this, that the machloket is that Rashi learns that even in a case where we assume he doesn't want, we don't care, it's not up to him. That's what Rashi. Tosafot learns that it is up to him. So, and that's why Tosafot says you say that לכן אומרים that's what you have you say. Lashon in Tosafot here is לכן אמרינן. That's why you say. Now, before we even go further, just Rashi over here in יבמות גיט א זאג א ווארט which might make a problem. Rashi says כל דמקדש תלי ליה בדעת חכמים הוא. Now I didn't read you the whole Rashi. I didn't, you know, in court you say the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, the whole truth. I didn't say the whole truth. Rashi adds דהא כדת משה וישראל קאמרינן. You say everyone is מקדש דעת חכמים because we say כדת משה וישראל, so it's mashma from Rashi that it's also dependent on your saying. But if you see, I want to be medayek, because if I'm not medayek I have a problem, that Rashi doesn't say דהא כדת משה וישראל קאמר, it doesn't say because he said, because we say. Rashi is explaining because why is it that the nusach is like that, because everyone is מקדש anyway. We put into the nusach what is done be'etzem. But Rashi learns that this is a דין בעצם that when you're מקדש, it's על דעת קידושין על דעת חכמים. While Tosafot is not. So what I'm trying to bring out, so if Rashi learns that be'etzem it's מקדש על דעת חכמים, so Rashi cannot learn the peshat that we gave, whether it's second way or the first way, the רבותיו wouldn't help him. What could be the peshat that Rashi could agree to it? Peshat would be that Gemara's קשיא תינח קידש בכסף, מיילא בכסף where we assume in his mind he meant the חכמים because he knows קידושי כסף מדרבנן, or because the חכמים made it up, that's why we say he is מקדש על דעת חכמים. But קידש בביאה, who says he is מקדש על דעת חכמים? Rashi couldn't learn like that because Rashi says it doesn't depend on him. If it's קידושין, it's dependent on the חכמים whether he likes it or not, so Rashi couldn't learn that peshat. On the other hand, Rashi couldn't learn the simple peshat either that that the רבותיו meant פשוט דרבנן, like he asked, what do you mean דרבנן, it's a definite דין דאורייתא, and that's why Rashi couldn't learn like that, and Rashi has his peshat. Yeah, but you're still stuck with the original question. No, what's the question? Oh, what is it? What question? I thought the question was you could say by כסף that if the חכמים later on later on said that was not a that was not a real קידושין. But what right do they have? That's the שאלה. What right do they have to say that? That's our שאלה. So normally the right is because you're מקדש על דעת, so they have a right. רבותיו של רש״י learn, the way it seems, simple peshat, not because you're מקדש על דעתם, because the whole קידושי כסף is דרבנן. On that came Rashi with a kashya: how could you say it's דרבנן? If it's דרבנן, how could you kill somebody? הא דאורייתא! The

tougher question is the second one, by ביאה. What's the second? Because you also said that to say by ביאה that it's no good, then it's no good? Right. Tosafot says it's it's בפירוש in Torah, ביאה is counts, they can go later on and No, because he's מקדש על דעתם. Are you asking me simple Are you going according to the simple peshat of the רבותיו של רש״י, or the peshat that I was trying to say? Simple peshat of רבותיו של רש״י is that by קידושי כסף it's דרבנן, then רבנן could get involved. If it's קידושי ביאה, how could they get involved? And the answer is that nevertheless they could, whichever. That's the answer, that they could. Okay, okay. The קשיא is, but who says that קידושי כסף is derabbanan? That's Rashi's קשיא, how could you say it's derabbanan? So I could just say that Rashi take does not learn it's derabbanan, רבותיו של רש״י does not learn it's derabbanan, it's deoraita. They call it derabbanan, and it's get the way the המשך הגמרא, that's why the Gemara felt as a hava amina that by קידושי ביאה by קידושי כסף could be different than ביאה, that's why. So everything is answered what they meant, so we understand what they meant, we understand why Rashi can't accept it. They learned this peshat, that this סברא דרבנן, really derabbanan, and they learned that the Gemara could fit that way because in that case it's not in his דעת and therefore, and Rashi cannot learn like that because Rashi feels that the דעת or not דעת makes no difference, how could it be such a hava amina? So ela mai, the only way you could learn maybe if you follow their way, simple derabbanan, weiter you can't learn, so Rashi says they're they're wrong. Why never at the beginning ever mentions, you know, like there were three ways: ביאה, שטר, and כסף, never mentioned שטר at all. Not in the Mishnah, the Gemara, the מפרשים ask, why the Gemara, the Gemara says מילא כסף, but what's with ביאה? What, what happened the Gemara doesn't men-