Kiddushin, kiddushin is the engagement, which makes her אשת איש, and the אירוסין, and then when you come later to the נישואין, נישואין the Rambam says it could be done through ביאה. Doesn't have to be through ביאה, it could be through ייחוד and הכנסה לבית, whatever, but the Rambam says if you did ביאה for נישואין it's also נישואין. That's what we spoke about last year. So, according to the דעה that says that it's not that's not always אדעתא דרבנן, then that's specifically Usually, I would Usually. So, in the first Yeah, maybe not, yeah. So, then the שאלה of קידושין No, the Kiddushin is חל, so the קידושין is חל without אדעתא דרבנן. But the רבנן will never be able to change it. Yeah. That's all according to the other Although, yeah, but he says according to this one. The others, yeah, like then there's another סברא. Maybe יש כח ביד חכמים לעקור, I don't know. If it's with כסף, it could only be על דעת דרבנן. According to who? According to the Rambam? According to that דעה, if you're not going according to that גזירה שוה, if you're going that it has to be that it's No, even to that, what happens if a guy says like this, even according to the Rambam, right? \"I'm מקדש בכסף because the רבנן made this up or told me, but I'm not giving them the option to to agree to it or not.\" Here we're talking about agreement to my to my marriage. \"I accept their קידושי כסף, but I say clearly that I'm not taking making it על מנת they agree. I don't care if they don't agree to my קידושין, I'm still doing it.\" And

then the קידושין would be קידושין and they can't invalidate. Unless it's a general principle, no? Right, right. No, we wouldn't pasken that way. No. התורה מסרו לחכמים. התורה מסרו לחכמים. I think that's like I think like there's a shiur for that. How much you do take, how much כסף? There's a machloket in the Gemara about it. לכולי עלמא כסף is only פרוטה. That's Beit Hillel. Beis Shammai says dinar. Yeah, good. Whoever Beis Shammai is dinar. על השיעור. No, that לגבי כסף it doesn't לגבי כסף it doesn't say anywhere this lashon. No, the lashon is to buy I thought you meant a type of lashon. It says by by עינויים, by Chol Hamoed. No, it doesn't say anywhere. I said, I didn't see anywhere to say by קידושי כסף מסרו לחכמים. I'm just saying that just like you find over there, l'chorah, you could say that the same thing is here. And you could say that too. You could say that the that the by כסף it's in the Torah regular gezeirah shavah, and the shiur, but then you wouldn't gain with the Rambam really. I'm just saying, but the lashon, I don't know, maybe it says somewhere, I never saw this anywhere, so that's why. I'm just Because then if you say מסרו לחכמים, which חכמים? החכמים who hold what? That that it's this amount or that amount? So you could never say There's a machlokes. The shaila No, good. Adrabah, so there's a machlokes and we pasken. No, good. There's no problem. There's a machlokes and then we pasken which one way. So so why does why would it say lashon like מסרו No, it doesn't say the lashon here. And that's why it doesn't say. No, no, I'm just saying if you if someone wants to come up and say such a pshat, the shaila what do we gain? See whenever we say try a different pshat or something, you have to find something to gain by it. If you don't gain, so what's the what's the purpose? Say pshat pashut. But if you have a kashya on the pshat and you have a teirutz, and you say it's simply a teirutz, then siding swing, this is the pshat. He comes every which is at least like there a if you have a perutah, it's that means that that's No, but the פשטא of perutah is it's a מעות בעלמא, because it's not only by קידושין. The Gemara asks how do you know if it's מקפיד, לא מקפיד. They're talking about the shiur and it was going to be another machloket. Rashi is משמע מחלוקת. Rashi means in in in in in Makkos, Sukkah, I don't know, so Makkos. That's משמע משמע it's pashut that a person is מוחל. I don't know. I think I say that as a הערה on the Rambam and not on the shiur. משום ביאה does not need to be explained. Shtar does not need to be explained. Kesef have to explain what it is. In He says like a peshat on the on the word קיחה. Bi'ah can still be a shiur also. Huh? Because there's there's there's there's a in the Gemara we were learning when we were talking about תחילת ביאה, סוף ביאה, but there's all one bi'ah. You have the But in when you're talking about adultery, when you're talking about a a So, there's it's not a shiur. In bi'ah, it's a שאלה תחילה and סוף. If תחילה is enough. העראה, you're chayav on העראה or not, but there's nothing No, that you can get for kesef also. It only becomes kesef when it hits that threshold of how much it is. So, who make who makes the how much? Yeah, so it's the same thing. No, but over there it's over there it's a different thing. The nafka mina of the הנאה שוה פרוטה. Yeah. All right, so

recap for me again. Why did What was Rashi's problem with Rav Huna? Rashi's problem with the simple peshat of Rav Huna, which means that they said it's קידושי דרבנן, Rashi's problem was how could it be קידושי דרבנן? From the Torah, we learn off the gezeirah shavah, it's de'oraita. So, it should be de'oraita. And also, how could you kill somebody for that? So, that peshat. So, we say maybe we want a different pshat, that they never meant it's d'oraita it's derabbanan, it is d'oraita, and that's why you kill. It's a it's a regular d'oraita. Ai, they said it's derabbanan, how can we say d'oraita? And and if it's d'oraita, why did they say pshat? So, the first way to learn, they meant that the rabbanan are the ones that were megaleh it through י״ג מדות. Or the second way, that the rabbanan were given the right to decide. And that's why you need And that's why we say that, yeah. That's the Rambam's lashon. And that's what the Gemara means תינח דקידש בכספא, because then we assume that this is possible that this is what he had in mind, but דביאה not. But, I'm saying Rashi was not happy with this pshat either. Cuz Rashi learns that you can't give it, it's not up to the person to whether he he decides it or not, it's a general principle. And therefore what's the Gemara's קשיא, תינח דקידש בכספא? What's the difference? Cuz Rashi goes with the shita that we always say it even if he didn't mean it, as Rashi makes it very clear in יבמות דף ק״י. What does that mean? You

said something about if you force a woman to take a get, it's not a get. It's not a get. How could you expect to make, to chal a get? Certainly not, unless he says רוצה אני and על פי דין he has to give. I thought if the woman doesn't want to get, you block, you stop Not the woman! D'oraita? The woman, if you if you give her a get, you can't force her, but you could throw it to her without her with her agreeing. No, you could force her also. I'm sorry, no, I'm sorry. No, d'oraita, no, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. You can force a woman to give a get, to take a get. Rabbeinu Gershom said that you can't, that's a different thing. But mid'oraita you could force. But now we're We're talking about a get if you force him. For the husband. Husband. The husband you force. That's why, that's what, that's why everybody's standard saying it's like Force the husband The husband you can't! That's why I said, you force the husband if על פי דין he has to give it, and they force him till he says רוצה אני, then the get is a get. But if someone forced him stam azoy, the get is no get. You can't force him, because it has to be ברצונו. The only shaila is, why don't you say אגב אונסיה גמר ומגרש? אגב אונסיה, that's a different, that's noge'a to our inyan. Like we learned before, why if you force someone to sell, the sale was a sale? Because because of the ones, because of the force, he probably agreed. So why don't you say when you force him, אגב אונסיה גמר ומגרש? גמר ומגרש. Well, he wants to do it anyway, so therefore That's the question! Why do we need the whole reason is because since it's על פי תורה, and he wants to do it anyway, without that reason Right. And from the Gemara it's mashma like that. For the Gemara says, if you force to give a get, force the husband, the Gemara says that sevara. And then the Gemara, the Gemara has a hava amina. The Gemara says maybe, the Gemara uses this sevara that you אגב אונסיה, that because you force it helps. So the Gemara says, we from this din the Gemara learns out, and the Gemara says maybe this din is different, because מצוה לשמוע דברי חכמים. Cuz the Chachamim told him to give a get, so it's a mitzvah to listen. And the Gemara shlogs it off, that's not the reason. So if you learn a simple pshat in the Gemara, it seems that the maskana is, why is the get good? Because אגב אונסיה גמר ומקני. And they ask the kashya on the Rambam. How does the Rambam say that the whole reason is because באמת he wants to give the get, because he wants to do the mitzvot, when from the Gemara it's not. That's a, the Gemara the hava amina was because it's מצוה לשמוע דברי חכמים. So what's the peshat? So probably he wants to do the mitzvah. So the Rambam fits with the hava amina, but not to the maskana. So they talk about it, it's a different, but that's all on the husband, not on the wife. Okay.