Here in the גמרא in קידושין דף ה עמוד א on the bottom, and going over onto דף ה עמוד ב. Says the גמרא that אמר רב הונא חופה קונה מקל וחומר, that חופה could be used, רב הונא says, as one of the forms of קידושין. So far we've learned in the משנה, no, קידושין, so far we've learned in the משנה that האשה נקנית בשלש דרכים, there are three ways you could make קידושין: כסף, שטר, and ביאה, these are the three ways. We know that a woman has two stages: you marry her, that's קידושין, you give her the קידושין. Then, those days used to be a year later, you would do חופה, and then that would make her into a נשואה. By קידושין she was just an ארוסה, just engaged. Engaged, not like when we have engagement nowadays, which is basically nothing, but the engagement of engagement that made her into an אשת איש, but she was still not fully married. And then, later, they would have חופה, and חופה made her fully married. Nowadays we do it together.

Under the חופה, when we stand there, that's when we give the כסף, we give the ring, which is כסף, and right afterwards we do the חופה. The main part of the חופה is יחוד, that you take her into יחוד room, that's חופה, and that makes her into a נשואה. Now, between the קידושין, or אירוסין we call it, and the נישואין, or the חופה we call it, is about five, 10 minutes, 15 minutes in between. It used to be a year. Anyway, but the משנה says you're קונה a woman with three ways. So the קידושין is done in three ways. So as far as we know always, there is a stage of קידושין which could be done with כסף, שטר, or ביאה, then there's another stage of חופה, that makes her into a נשואה. We have to keep these minds and words. You have קידושין, which means what, married? Married. A married woman. ביאה doesn't make her married? No, makes it to the... Still ביאה... Yeah, just as an ארוסה. This ביאה is the קידושין. ביאה is the קידושין as one of the three. Engagement. Engagement. This makes her engaged, and engaged means, those days engaged meant an אשת איש. She became a married woman. Like partially married? Partially married, but enough that if someone would have relations with her, would get killed. But still, she was not fully married, she not allowed to live with her husband afterwards, she's not He doesn't inherit from her, הפרת נדרים, it's all kinds of דינים that you find. Now Now we're saying you can do it all at the same time with חופה? I mean, no, this גמרא is trying to say... Wait, wait a second. I didn't get to that yet.

So so we know there are two stages: there's קידושין, and another word for קידושין is אירוסין, that's why sometimes you might hear me say אירוסין or קידושין, and the other stage is נישואין or חופה. קידושין is the beginning, the first stage, then נישואין is the second stage. No, no, no. ביאה is קידושין. Comes רב הונא, רב הונא says, I'm telling you that if you use חופה as a form of קידושין, it'll work. You could do מקדש with חופה. Well, we'll get to this soon. אמר רב הונא חופה קונה מקל וחומר. He makes a קל וחומר that חופה is קונה. And the גמרא really comes here later with the, what the קל וחומר is. Then the גמרא says אמר רבא, רבא said like this: שתי תשובות בדבר, I have two questions on this קל וחומר. You know what, let me mention the קל וחומר from here to the גמרא. The קל וחומר was like this: מה דכסף שאינו גומר, כסף cannot finish off the marriage, it can only start. Nevertheless, it's קונה. It can't finish, but it's קונה. That means that to be קונה is easier than to finish, because you see here something that cannot finish, but can be קונה. חופה, which could finish, certainly could be קונה. The גמרא asks a קשיא, and the גמרא answers a תירוץ. Finally the גמרא says, אמר רבא שתי תשובות בדבר. I have two questions. Number one, חדא, one thing is: שלש תנן, ארבע לא תנן. In the משנה it says three ways you can make קידושין. It doesn't say four. According to you, it should have said a fourth way. ועוד, another question: כלום חופה גומרת אלא על ידי קידושין. When we say חופה finishes, it's only if it comes through קידושין. What you're trying to say is you want to learn out חופה שלא על ידי קידושין from חופה שעל ידי קידושין. You want to learn out that חופה without having קידושין beforehand should be קונה because חופה that has קידושין makes a גמר, finishes. You can't learn from that.

אמר ליה אביי, אביי said to him: First of all, הא דקאמרת שלש תנן ארבע לא תנן, that it says three, not four, I have an answer: תנא מילתא דכתיבא בהדיא תנא מילתא דמפרשא תנא, תנא מילתא דכתיבא בהדיא תנא. He only writes in the משנה things which is מפורש in the תורה, or closer to מפורש. So כסף, שטר, and ביאה are more or less in the תורה. חופה you have a קל וחומר, so that's answered that anyway. ודקאמרת, the second קשיא that you had, כלום חופה גומרת אלא על ידי קידושין, that חופה that finishes is only through קידושין, and you want to learn out from there, just like חופה finishes, חופה starts, but חופה finishes only after קידושין, you want it to start without קידושין, I'll tell you: רב הונא נמי הכי קאמר, that's what רב הונא meant: מה דכסף שאינו גומר אחר כסף. מה דכסף, even if you do it after כסף it cannot finish, קונה, it could make the קנין, חופה שגומרת אחר כסף, חופה that finishes after כסף, אינו דין, should certainly it would make a קנין by on its own. Finish means to make נישואין, make the marriage. This is basically the גמרא. So we have here basically a מחלוקת between רב הונא and the rest. Here in the גמרא we have רבא who argues on רב הונא, because רבא asked a קשיא on רב הונא. So we have and we and we see from the גמרא earlier that there is a מחלוקת between רב הונא and the other אמוראים. רב הונא holds חופה is קידושין and other אמוראים hold חופה cannot be קידושין. So always we have to understand what is the basis of their מחלוקת, like what can we say this is based on. Another thing is why doesn't we find what רבא answered אביי's תירוץ? רבא asked a קשיא on רב הונא that the קל וחומר doesn't fit. And אביי answered it. Why don't we find that רבא should answer back to אביי something? Then I just want to say that when we we'll have to discuss here the two sides, רב הונא's opinion and the other opinion. It's not only two opinions in the גמרא, they're two opinions in הלכה.

Most פוסקים, starting with the רמב״ם and all other פוסקים, do not פסקן like רב הונא. They say חופה cannot be קידושין. The רבינו חננאל says, \"I'm not so sure.\" And he says if someone would give a woman חופה as קידושין, no, having in mind קידושין, she needs a גט. Because it would be a קידושין, because he says רב הונא might be right. So whatever I'm going to explain later is not only explanation between רב הונא and the others or רב הונא and רבא. Again it's רבא, see אביי seems to be holding like רב הונא. With רבא it will also also be an explanation in between the רמב״ם let's say, and the רבינו חננאל whether we accept רב הונא. רבינו חננאל what what he's saying is not necessarily saying that רב הונא has any basis or he understands רב הונא's basis. He's just saying I'm covering bases. No, you don't cover. It's not הלכה, you don't cover bases. But he's saying it's possible he's right. Ah, so another פוסקים holds it's not possible he's right. Right. So obviously the the רבינו חננאל says that רב הונא סברא is an acceptable סברא, at least possible. He does have an explanation and he does learn into it. So obviously he takes whatever we're going to explain in רב הונא, he takes it down all the way to הלכה that that is a possibility. The other פוסקים don't take that סברא at all. And so that's what I'm saying, that whatever we're going to explain in רב הונא will be the explanation why that the רבינו חננאל says maybe that's the פשט. Right, but he won't go with anything else. Yeah, he he will not say בדיעבד, but if he says if he says we follow רב הונא at least give a גט, it shows that there is some validity to רב הונא's opinion according to רבינו חננאל. And another thing by רבא and אביי, רבא and אביי רבא's question and אביי's answer it's not necessarily that they're against each other, as much as they're just looking at it from different angles. Yeah, but למעשה No, but there's no סברא that they're on Well, there is, and definitely, actually, one of the ראיות we have that that the רא״ש brings that we don't פסקן like רב הונא he says, \"Because in our גמרא it's a מחלוקת אביי ורבא.\" We know that. \"And הלכה like רבא.\" He says it clearly. Oh, you've got to Say that. Yeah, one one, the רא״ש is clear, one of the ראיות he says, he said, \"We don't פסקן like רב הונא.\" And he says, \"One of the ראיות is because we've seen our גמרא רבא doesn't hold like רב הונא, אביי does, and the הלכה like רבא always.\" Okay, so that's one thing. Then there's another point here: In רב הונא itself, רב הונא's opinion himself, there is a מחלוקת. Basically it's between other ראשונים, but the it's known as the מחלוקת between the מהרש״א and the מהרש״ל. The מהרש״א here and the מהרש״ל, not in the מהרש״ל in a פירוש here, but the מהרש״ל in ים של שלמה.

According to רב הונא we said that חופה is used could be used as קידושין. So, the מהרש״א if חופה is used as קידושין, then that קידושין will not need another חופה afterwards. You will have accomplished with one חופה both. The חופה And he says in the סברא is, because what, so you could say you need חופה and another חופה. What's the second חופה better than the first? So he says you don't need. And therefore he says this, so he טייטשט רב הונא, what does רב הונא mean? That חופה makes קידושין and that קידושין will also be at the same time נישואין. It's משמע actually from רש״י like that. The מהרש״ל, ים של שלמה says, \"No, if you have חופה as קידושין according to רב הונא, it'll be קידושין. Then you will need afterwards another חופה to make נישואין.\" So again He means the same argument that רבא and אביי are both using by saying, \"Listen, whatever it is, one of them is the first step, and the second one is the second.\" They both are saying it, so according to the second one the מהרש״ל, it makes he is in line with both רבא and אביי in terms of their their logic. But he can't be aligned with רבא, when רבא argues on רב הונא. It's the logic that he's saying. No no, but רבא says that you can't learn out חופה שלא על ידי קידושין from חופה על ידי קידושין. Right, but he's still He's acknowledging that this is a two-step process, though. He's just saying, Right, but the שאלה is can you use this as a first as a first step? The שאלה Even if you use חופה as a first step, it doesn't mean you have to it doesn't mean you don't have to have a second step of חופה. Right, but but that's not the question. The question, the מחלוקת in גמרא is whether חופה can be a first step. Now we have a מחלוקת, פשט in that. Will that first step automatically be a second step, or we need another second step? But the מחלוקת is, is it used as a first step? Can חופה be used as a first step? And if it is, both רבא and אביי hold there's two it's a two-step No, but both רבא holds that you cannot. Okay, but it's still a two-step process and he Everyone knows that a marriage is a two-step process. Except for the מהרש\"ל who No. No, מהרש\"ל, only if you use חופה, not if you give geld. חופה could be a one-step חופה could be one step, so we have to understand what is the סברא here. That's exactly what I'm going to ask: what is the סברא, why he holds that חופה normally, we know you need two steps, and by חופה, they say if חופה could be used as קידושין, it would be one step. And מהרש\"ל says not, which would mean מהרש\"ל is understood because you need two steps. Yeah, why would אלא מאי, he says the words because what would the second חופה be better than the first? But but the first is a first step, the second is a second step, so you got to understand it. Doesn't matter, how long did it take? We'll see. Not more heavy and cumbersome the whole idea of נישואין and קידושין and everything else. Hundreds of thousands of marriages a year and they were all two steps? The time in between Oh, always two steps! It's always two steps. All right. In the meantime, they would get everything ready. They would So what was the hurry to get married? Even now it's two steps! They already found the חופה Even now it's two steps! Now it's two steps. Yeah, they do it at the same time. It's still a two-step! A two-step, so the difference is 15 minutes, so? Used to make the blankets and the dishes and get everything together for a year, and We got a lot more than two steps. What is the old the old-time religion? You just pick up the wife, bring her into the house, and period, that's not We'll see, we'll get into it. Are these all rabbinical, or all דאורייתא? דאורייתא. דאורייתא? They're all the דאורייתא steps. When he says, I mean, we're going to get to this other one, when he says חופה would be both, חופה for קידושין, I presume, he would say like הרי הרי את מקודשת לי The חופה itself. בחופה זו. Right. And that would be the חופה part, Right, but would I mean that would be the קידושין part, but then you would probably have to do No, the מהרש\"ל said no. מהרש\"ל said you wouldn't. So because when she comes onto the חופה, or That doesn't matter, it makes נישואין also. Yeah, that's what he says. And מהרש\"ל says no. So we have to understand the two sides here. Make sure we're not getting married, because no one's in a hurry of being מקדש. You're not marrying, you got to make sure your step was reached. What happens when a person can't talk? Write it down. Question. Can you write it down? Yeah, you could. There are other things on Texas flight, yeah? Not to start, but around the 70s or 80s. Huh? What if you had those very small חופות? Huh? Outside the Doesn't that cover Huh? That's not covered by what חופה is. Covered. But let's go we'll go we'll go this way. What's What is חופה? We'll explain this, what is חופה.

We have many שיטות what is חופה. Some hold חופה is יחוד. And they are So let's go a step even before. Someone חופה is only הכנסה לבית. He brings her home. He brings her home, that's the marriage. Some say חופה is יחוד. It's fine to bring her home, it has to be sitting privately in a room. The רמב\"ם seems to be holding that you have to bring her home and have יחוד and it has to be יחוד הראוי לביאה. Has to be not סתם יחוד, but יחוד that is fit for ביאה. Time-wise? Not only time-wise, place-wise. I hope she's kosher. Let's say she's a נדה. If she's a נדה, according to the רמב\"ם, she the חופה is not valid. How come? It's not complete. No, it's not done. Now, what happened later on a week later once she is Then you've got to Then you do the whole ceremony all over again? What ceremony? No, no. That will be the חופה. You will bring her home then. The question is, will you need עדים or not? In all three, there is a witness witnesses? That's a שאלה if you need witnesses. Some say yes, and some not. Some say חופה is the veil. Some say חופה is standing under the poles. Some say חופה is the ברכות that you make under the חופה. Some say, one person says, that you know what חופה is? There is nothing special for חופה. Whatever the society makes as making you wife, that's it. פשוט. How you make קידושין we find in the פסוקים. The גמרא discusses. The גמרא not once discusses what is חופה. Is there anywhere in the גמרא? That's why there could be a מחלוקת. So they say, what did, because there is nothing, it's all. Anyway, but the bottom line, the רמב״ם says like this: רמב״ם holds that חופה, like I said, יחוד, you bring her home, has to be יחוד, and has to be יחוד הראוי לביאה. What is the source of the רמב״ם? So, the רבי has a ביאור, the most beautiful ביאור. You have a רמב״ם here? There and there. There, over there, in the little In the little room. The little ones, drop Drop down, to the left. To the left? It's easier to read. The little ones, over there. The רמב״מ׳לאך? Yeah. הלכות אישות. The beginning of הלכות אישות, let's read the רמב״ם. The רמב״ם says

like this: קודם מתן תורה, היה אדם פוגע אשה בשוק, before מתן תורה a person would meet some a woman in the street, אם רצה הוא והיא לישא אותה, if he wants and she wants to marry, מכניסה לביתו, he would bring her home, ובעלה, and he would have ביאה בינו לבינה לביתו, ותהיה לו לאשה, to his wife. כיוון שניתנה תורה, as soon as the תורה was given, נצטוו ישראל, Yidden were told, שאם ירצה איש לישא אשה, if a man wants to marry a woman, יקנה אותה תחילה בפני עדים, he has to get her, he has to be קונה her, acquire her first, in front of עדים, ואחר כך תהיה לו לאשה, and then she will be his wife, שנאמר כי יקח איש אשה ובא אליה, he takes a wife. The רבי has different שאלות here, but one קשיא he asks: How come the רמב״ם doesn't talk here about what נישואין is? He talks about the דין of קידושין. Till פרק י׳, the רמב״ם has not mentioned what נישואין is. It's פרק י׳, 10th פרק, he starts off that an ארוסה אסורה לבעלה, to her husband. But after you bring her home and you have חופה, that's when she becomes מותרת. Why didn't he mention נישואין in the beginning, it's one of the foundations of marriage? Another thing, why did the רמב״ם tell us what happened before מתן תורה? Who cares? It's very good history, but the רמב״ם is not history, but tell him, what does it mean? Who cares what it is? It goes. And בכלל the רבי asks the

שאלה, the רמב״ם goes into all פרטים of all details of marriage, and one thing he skips is נישואין. Not only doesn't mention, he doesn't mention the name anyway. The bottom line, the רבי want to explain this פשט in the רמב״ם. The רמב״ם אדרבה, talks about נישואין right in the beginning. The רמב״ם tells you what happened before מתן תורה, not just to tell us what used to be before מתן תורה, he tells us this that happened before is the same now! What happened What changed was that השם wanted that before you do נישואין, which is what happened then? You take her home and you do you you make her your your your wife. השם was מצווה that before that, you should be קונה her. So according to this, he says, the marriage, the נישואין, that is the marriage! But השם gave us a מצוה that before the מציאות, the fact of being married, חיי אישות, you have to have קנין. That's why the רמב״ם starts off with קודם מתן תורה, because that's the גדר, that's the מהות of what חופה of what נישואין is. The רבי says, this is the מקור of the רמב״ם later on what נישואין is, what חופה is. The רמב״ם holds חופה means you have to bring her home and have יחוד, and יחוד הראוי לביאה, because the real חופה have to resemble the way it was of old, that it means bring her home ובא עליה. So here it's not ממש ובא עליה, you have ביאה, but you have to have ראוי לביאה, to fit to ביאה. So according to this, the question he asked, well, how come the רמב״ם doesn't talk about נישואין? What, he doesn't talk? Right the first הלכה tells us exactly what נישואין is. Fine. How come it's not ביאה, but just the יחוד? Ah, so the רבי says, because it's ראוי. It fits, has to be fit to ביאה, and therefore he holds that if it's not fit to ביאה, it's טאקע not good, because it has to be similar to what was before. So according to the רמב״ם, it comes out like this: that חופה is not a קנין that is קונה the woman for a נשואה. See, קידושין are things that you do, which is a קנין. Just like you acquire an object, you acquire a wife in a קנין for for marriage purpose. But it's a קנין. Know what know what חופה is? חופה is the mere fact that you are married! That's the marriage itself! What the תורה said that before you have the marriage itself, the תורה wants you to have קנין, which is קידושין. If you learn like this, let's stop and think for a second: Is it possible to have חופה as as קידושין? According to thi- See, if you would learn, you have like this, you have certain things which are קנין for קידושין, then you have חופה, which is a קנין for נישואין. The question is: Can the קנין of נישואין work to be to to accomplish the קידושין? So you could say, well, we have a קל וחומר, you could learn out. But according to this, חופה is not a קנין. חופה is basically a מציאות of marriage. In order to get married, you have to have a קנין before. So what are we going to say? That maybe the חופה itself should be the קנין before. The whole idea of the תורה of קידושין is that before you have חופה, have

קנין. So you're going to tell me, well, that חופה will be the קנין. But חופה is not a קנין! So this is basically the מחלוקת between רב הונא and the rest, and רבא. רב הונא holds חופה could be a קנין of קידושין, because he holds חופה is a קנין. פשוט. So he has his סברא, it's a קל וחומר. If you hold the moment you hold חופה is the way the רמב״ם says, that it's not a קנין, חופה is just the fact of marriage, the living as husband and wife, that is what חופה is, and the תורה wants you to have a קנין before, so חופה can't be קידושין. It's obvious, because it's you're contradicting yourself. What, you're going to have the חופה, but the תורה says before חופה have a קנין. So you're going to say, well, I'm going to have חופה make the קנין. But the תורה wants you to have a קנין before that! So how does it work? So it comes out that basically the מחלוקת between רב הונא and רבא is whether חופה is a קנין, like all קנינים for נישואין, or חופה is not a קנין, it's the מציאות of the marriage. That's why if we finally look at the לשונות of אביי and רבא. רבא we said argues with רב הונא, אביי goes like רב הונא. See, רבא used the term, when he asked his קשיא, he says how could you learn out חופה that doesn't come through קידושין from חופה that comes through קידושין? What did we learn out? From חופה, just like חופה is גומר, so too חופה should be קונה. So he said, but חופה that finishes off is act- is through קידושין, and this not. So he used the term חופה through קידושין, על ידי קידושין. אביי, when he answered, used the term חופה שאחר קידושין, אחר כסף. Why did he change the לשון, that after? I'll tell you why. If it's a קנין, then you could say it's a separate entity, it's a קנין, but when does the קנין come? After the קנין of כסף, the קנין of קידושין comes the קנין of

חופה. The whole סברא of רבא of of of רבא, who argues on רב הונא, is that חופה is not a קנין. So what term does he use? חופה is something that's there after קידושין, but it's not an entity that's there through קידושין. חופה שעל ידי קידושין. על ידי קידושין means it's something that קידושין is there, and through קידושין now you're entered into חופה. But it's not another thing which comes after. In the words themselves, you have the hint to the point of what they argue with. And that's why he doesn't have to answer him anything, because in what he said, in what רבא said, אביי's קשיא to begin with doesn't start, because רבא said it's חופה שעל ידי קידושין. So it's a type of חופה that's חופה that's through קידושין, but not that חופה itself is an is an entity of a קנין. So ממילא he doesn't have a question. But the bottom line is or the main point I'm trying to bring out here is this: that according to רב הונא, חופה is a קנין, so it could be a קנין of נישואין, it's a קנין of קידושין. We, who argue, or the רמב״ם, he goes לשיטתו, the

רמב״ם holds that חופה is nothing but the marriage itself, and you have to have a קנין before the marriage, so that marriage cannot be קידושין. A דוגמא, huh? No, that חופה cannot be קידושין. A דוגמא is The marriage itself, the marriage itself has to have קנין. Right, so you can't say that the marriage is the קנין. So if it's the marriage itself, it could include קנין. No, it's not a קנין! It's just a מציאות! It's a מציאות, it's not a fact entity though. This is that it's the marriage itself. We need a קנין, this is the marriage itself! We need a קנין before the marriage. חופה is the marriage! The whole thing that the תורה said of קידושין is that before, it's as if תורה says, before you have חופה you have to have קנין. So you say, well, let חופה be the קנין. Well, I just told you that before the חופה you have to have a קנין, you're going to tell me that the חופה it doesn't need a קנין, the חופה is the קנין? The תורה says before the marriage you need קנין, so how could how could that be the קנין? Okay? It's like a permit. Build it. All right? A permit to build your house. If you build your house you have no permit, it's already done. If you have the house without the permit, the house is going to have to be fixed. The house will fix, but here we're talking a חלות דין. But here the תורה said that you can't allow the marriage unless you have a קנין before. And the and we can't allow the marriage to take place, so חופה is the marriage taking place, that's all it is. And the תורה says, I want you to have a קנין before. What are you going to tell me, let that marriage be enough for קידושין? But the תורה said, I want before the marriage I want something. It's it's it's contradicting itself! If חופה is קנין, If חופה is קנין, is also מציאות. Then, yeah, but yeah, then it could be it's a type of קנין that could work for קידושין also. According to the רמב״ם it's not it's not קנין, it's not a קנין בכלל. It's not. I gave an example: the רמב״ם, there's no clear definition as to what it is. I always say what it is: you bring her home and she's in your, yeah, we just said, according to the רמב״ם, you bring her home, you have ייחוד הראוי לביאה. And she's in your house. In other words, basically what it means, get married with her, just like before מתן תורה. No, how can that be a קנין anyway, when you don't even have like a rule as to what you have to do to No, for this according to the רבנן this is a קנין. This is what you have to do as a קנין. The קנין of of how to get to נישואין is do this and this. So we could say this brings you to נישואין. Doing this makes that you will become married. This could make you become מקודשת. But according to the רמב״ם it's not what makes you married, this is marriage. Just like Wait, there are two קנינים or two different things in the same act? Say it again? In terms of רב הונא, he's saying if you that he saw it says two two things happen on this act. One is it accomplishes the קנין of קידושין, and the second one According to the מהרש״ל. So how does he how does he Hold on, let me get to it. And this is בדומה, similar, to a different שיחה. The רבי explains the דין of גרות. דין of גרות.

The the the רבי asks a question on the גמרא. The גמרא says that there were three ways how the אידן entered into the ברית, into becoming אידן, and so too later generations there are three things you have to do. What three things? מילה, and טבילה, they circumcise, they go to the מקוה, and they have to bring a קרבן. The רבי asks, I don't understand. Everyone knows that as a major part in in גרות is קבלת מצות. Ask anybody now, how what three things you need for גרות? מילה, טבילה, קבלת מצות. Everyone knows. רמב״ם says, the גמרא, the רמב״ם says that you have מילה, טבילה, and and and קרבן. What? And a קרבן. You bring a קרבן. Nowadays you don't bring a קרבן. מילה, טבילה, which is מקוה, and a קרבן. What about קבלת מצות? So the רבי says קבלת מצות is not something that makes you You need to do it in order to become a גר. That is גרות! And he proves the לשון in the רמב״ם. The רמב״ם says like this, \"If a person wants to become an איד and accept מצות, then what must he do? He must do מילה, טבילה, and a קרבן.\" This is the גרות. This is גרות. It's not something that makes you an איד, this is this is becoming an איד. But the other three things, those are things you have to do. The מחלוקת between over here is the same thing. רבא learns that חופה is not something that makes you anything. חופה is! Like over there. This is גרות. And רב הונא will learn, no, חופה is a thing that makes you married, just like כסף, שטר, ביאה, makes you מקודשת, and that's a פעולה you do, חופה makes you a נשואה. It's a קנין that makes you. So this would be similar to those three things of מילה, טבילה, a קרבן that you have to do. מה שאין כן and and רבא will learn, so we can also know, like the רמב״ם will say, this is exactly like this. Even though if he if a גר doesn't keep every מצוה, he's still he's still an איד. He accepted! At that moment. If he Right, so we're talking about קבלה, no? So becoming an איד means you accept. The same way a couple they can not want to be married at 8:00 tomorrow once you go through the Yeah, yeah, you came and you you're married until you do something to stop that. You'll get a גט. Yeah. It would seem so that קבלת מצות is not there because they're not No, at the time of the קבלה, time of the גרות, no? קבלת מצות means you want to be מגויר. Not a מעשה בפועל, so it's just a מחשבה, no? No, פארשטייט זיך, it's in order to do the מעשה. If the guy doesn't, then it's something else. But בשעת you're מגויר, what is the פשט? Not the פשט, in order to become a גר, you have to accept מצות. Becoming a גר is accepting מצות. That's what a Jew is. That's what a Jew is. Becoming an אויס איד, yeah, what do they have to do? They can't become a No, a Jew is a Jew. Just like a regular Jew can't become an אויס איד. Even if he went back afterwards? If he was an איד מלכתחילה, I know, but the גרות was good. No, it's פשוט, איי, חס ושלום. Anyway, now that we compare this to גרות, because the logic is the same in both places, there's another שיחה where the רבי explains גרות with another point. We said like this, now we said there are two points in גרות. There is the גרות itself, which is קבלת מצות, and then you have מילה, טבילה, and the קרבן, which is פעולות that you have to do in order to become a גר. In a different place, the רבי explained that out of these three themselves, there are two categories. He says like this: מילה and טבילה are פעולות that you have to do in order to become a גר. The קרבן, he says, you don't have to do to become a גר. The קרבן is only a שלימות. If you don't have the קרבן, you're missing in your things. לגבי a certain פרט. אי the לשון is that in order to go in you have to have, in order to go into the ברית you have to have three things, yeah, you have to have three things, because if not, you can't go in. He gives an example: it's like when you want to go into a door, certain things you have to do to be able to go in, you have to walk, but then you have to open the door. Now, opening the door is not פשט that is what brings you in, but if not for that you can't come in. So if you're going to say what brings me in is walking and opening the door, that's not true, opening the door doesn't bring me in. But if I say in order to get in, I'm getting in through walking and opening the door, yeah, yeah. So he explains that מילה and טבילה are two points in גרות that you have to do as a positive act. קבלת, קבלת מצות we said, that's גרות itself, that you don't have to do, that's the גרות. Then the קרבן is if you don't have it, you're missing something, so that's why you have to bring the קרבן in order to take away the מניעה. Comes here to this ענין. There is a שאלה here. This ענין that we said that according to רב הונא, yeah, what we're holding now is רב הונא, that חופה is not מציאות of marriage. חופה is a קנין that you do as marriage, similar to those three things of גרות, not the קבלת מצות. In

which category does it go in? Is it the category that you have to, that חופה is a קנין that makes you married, or חופה is a קנין that takes away a מניעה? In other words, when you do קידושין, you're married, that's all you have to do, then you have to have another קנין to take away something that's missing. If you don't have חופה, your marriage won't be full. You have חופה to take away the problem. The problem is if you're not in the house yet, the problem, so you take away the problem. Or you say, no, it's a positive thing, just like you have to have קידושין to make קידושין, you have to do חופה to make נישואין. It's another פרט like the קרבן. Huh? Another פרט. That's what, another פרט, the קרבן. It's a פרט like the other two. So again, those that argue on רב הונא hold that חופה is בכלל not a פרט, it's marriage itself. רב הונא holds it's like those three things. In that חופה, kind of clarify which of those things is it similar to. Is it something that you have to do or it's only taking off a מניעה? What would be the נפקא מינה? The נפקא מינה would be this מחלוקת מהרש\"א and מהרש\"ל. If it's only a מניעה, that means that if you don't have חופה you can't get married, so when you're going to use the חופה as קידושין, you wouldn't need again נישואין, you wouldn't need the חופה again, because סוף כל סוף, you can't say you didn't have חופה. If חופה doesn't have to accomplish anything, חופה is only if you don't have חופה you can't be married, but you have חופה. אי the חופה was done לשם קידושין, who cares, but לפועל you're not missing the concept of חופה. If you say you need חופה as a קנין for נישואין, so when you use it as a קנין for קידושין, you use it for one קנין. For that, you have to have another קנין, because נישואין needs a קנין. So how could the קנין of חופה, used as קידושין, be also the קנין for נישואין? And that's what the מחלוקת מהרש\"א, מהרש\"ל is פשט in, in רב הונא. So it comes out that we have three things here. We have those that argue on רב הונא will hold that you can't use it at קידושין at all, because it's like the גרות, it's the קבלת מצות which is גרות itself. רב הונא holds that it's not גרות itself, it's not נישואין itself, marriage itself, it's something that you do, in that גופא there's a מחלוקת מהרש\"א, מהרש\"ל which way it is. Is it a complete נישואין? Is it only taking away a מניעה, and then you wouldn't have to have a second one? According to the מהרש\"ל, it's a, it's a קנין, and if it's a קנין, you have to have a second קנין. What do you mean by taking away a מניעה? That if you don't have it, you're not married. That's all it means. Taking away like something that will be a shortcoming in the whole process. Right, right. It's a form of a שלילה. Huh? A form of שלילה. This is שלילה. Exactly, שלילה means you need to do it because if not, you're missing something, not because you have to do something in a positive way. You have to get rid, you have to be שולל, you have to get rid of of a blockage, rather than doing something to bring in. This answers another שאלה that people ask on the מהרש\"א. The the

תוספות here asks a קשיא, an interesting קשיא: תימא, תימא, לדידן, according to us that we hold חופה is not קונה, why can't כסף be used as חופה, as as נישואין? And make a קל וחומר, the same קל וחומר: מה חופה which cannot be קונה could finish, כסף which could be קונה, אינו דין it should finish? That's why כסף, שטר, and ביאה. Yeah, look at it. But it's discussing כסף, you see. So, yeah, תוספות answers, according to this, the only way it would, he says, it would be able to make חופה, make נישואין If you first had כסף as קידושין, and then you would make a second כסף as נישואין. Right, that's what it thinks, because the קל וחומר would be from חופה which comes after כסף. So כסף should also work like חופה, obviously after כסף. So he says, but that doesn't make sense, because מאי אולמא האי כסף מהאי כסף? Why would why would the second כסף be the first כסף? So comes out in תוספות here that that's for sure, if כסף would work as חופה, as נישואין, it definitely would need a כסף before. You'd have to have two כספים. The מהרש״א says by חופה, not like that. The מהרש״א says by חופה, if חופה, if if חופה works as קידושין, you don't need a second חופה. So if כסף works as קידושין and כסף is also good for חופה, maybe that same כסף would do both? That's by the מהרש״א. But what I said before is ממש understood now. The reason the מהרש״א holds that this is going to wait to wait is going to be because it's because we're talking about חופה. חופה, which is only taking off the מניעה. So the moment you used חופה as קידושין, you can't tell me that I'm missing something, because I'm missing the you have חופה. I I had intended it for קידושין, but you can't tell me I didn't have חופה. But if the same thing with the כסף, כסף for sure would not be just taking off a מניעה. If כסף worked as חופה, it would be a קנין of חופה. So then, פֿאַרשטייט זיך, you need two קנינים. Then it would be similar to what the מהרש״ל says. You're using this answer to help the מהרש״א, which goes against the theory of מניעה. No, פֿאַרקערט, מהרש״א learns מניעה. Okay, how does he hold it's a קנין? No, I said it. What רבא holds, it's בכלל not a קנין. He holds it's a קנין, but in the קנין גופא, we said there are two ways. Right. Then רב הונא... Was in רב הונא, so he holds it's only הסרת המניעה. And מהרש״ל... מהרש״ל holds it's a קנין. It's a קנין הפקעת קינין. So the reason the מהרש״א says why is it? Because since חופה could be הסרת המניעה. But if כסף would be חופה, it wouldn't be הסרת המניעה. If כסף would be חופה, הסרת המניעה, חופה means bringing her home. If she's missing, she's not home yet, how could she be married? What What's the פשט הסרת המניעה? According to him, it's like It's a קנין, you have to bring her home and make a קנין. But what's the type of קנין you have to make? Because if she's not at home, how could she be married? So if you did חופה for קידושין, who cares if it was לשם קידושין, but בפועל she's home. But by כסף, כסף would be a קנין of נישואין. So פֿאַרשטייט זיך there, you would need two קנינים. There's a קנין of קידושין and a קנין of נישואין. Missing that second stage if you use the חופה for קידושין,

right? According to מהרש״א, you don't need a second stage. This second stage is included. מהרש״ל not. What about ביאה? ביאה is not similar to חופה in terms of what it is itself? Still not bringing her home. The result of the the act... Yeah. ...in there can be all in in the one encompasses everything, it's not... No, no. כסף is a different... See, even even even before מתן תורה, the way it worked was מכניסה לביתו ובעלה, בעלה ונעשית. You can't What happens if you meet her in the street and does ביאה in the street with her? Before מתן תורה, she wasn't his wife. There had to be the whole thing of מכניסה לבית, bring her home as your wife. Otherwise, it's a זונה, it's loose, that's all it is. Even if you could have in mind. But but as קידושין, it would. You meet a woman on the street and you say, \"I want to מקדש you,\" and you do ביאה in the street, it's it's it's she's מקודשת. So the רבנן don't like it, give מלקות, whatever, but על פי דין, she's מקודשת. As long as there's עדים, sorry, yeah. So it comes out like this, that the מחלוקת between רב הונא and us, or רבא, or whatever, רבינו חננאל and the רמב״ם, is what is the גדר of חופה. Whether חופה is the מציאות of marriage, or חופה is a קנין that you do. So I want to say like this, that באמת, before מתן תורה, everyone agrees this is how it was. No one argues. So why would you say רב הונא holds that חופה now is different? פשוט, because ניתנה תורה ונתחדשה הלכה. After the תורה was given, now there's a new הלכה. The question is how far does that ונתחדשה הלכה go? That's will be That will be the I'm explaining now more in detail the מחלוקת. The רמב״ם

holds נתחדשה הלכה means that before that there was no חיוב to do this. The תורה was given, the מהות of what חופה remains the same as before. And just now, you're doing a מצוה. The רב הונא learns ניתנה תורה ונתחדשה הלכה means that now the whole מהות of חופה changed. What do you mean by that? What it is, the context of what that is, the meaning of חופה, what חופה stands for, changed. And now חופה is a קנין. A קנין or a קנין חיוב, a קנין שמירה, that's the נקודה. Why am I saying it? Because we find another הלכה, which I think based on the רבי'ס פשט in this רמב״ם, we could say the פשט over there, and there the רמב״ם gives this לשון. That is the beginning of הלכות אבילות. The beginning of הלכות אבל, I was looking... Oh yeah, lots of things from מתן תורה, but here according to the רמב״ם it didn't change. But according to this, here it says like this: מצוות עשה להתאבל על הקרובים, to מצוה to have אבילות, שנאמר, and he quotes a פסוק, ואין אבילות מן התורה אלא יום ראשון בלבד, אבילות from the תורה is only the first day, which is the day the person died and the day he was buried. אבל שאר שבעת ימים, the other seven days, אינו מן התורה אף על פי שנאמר בתורה ויעש לאביו אבל שבעת ימים, even though the תורה says that they did for יעקב they did an אבילות of seven days, the תורה mentions seven days, ניתנה תורה ונתחדשה

הלכה, תורה was given, new הלכה, so the הלכה is only one day. Then he says, so where did seven days come from? מדרבנן. Which one of the דרבנן? One of the big חכמים. So the רמב״ם says who? The biggest חכם we could imagine, משה רבינו. משה רבינו תיקן להם לישראל שבעת ימי אבילות ושבעת ימי המשתה. משה רבינו was מתקן to have seven days of אבילות. So I have a few questions on the רמב״ם, but I have one question on the רמב״ם, why is it נוגע, why does the רמב״ם ask the קשיא, says that מן התורה it's one day, דרבנן it's seven days, fine. Why does he have to ask a קשיא, ah, the תורה says that there were seven days, but the תורה was given. The רמב״ם is not a ספר that asks קשיות and תירוצים, he just picks הלכות, why is it נוגע to know? Then I have another שאלה. What does the פשט the רמב״ם says the first day is מן התורה, but the other seven days are not מן התורה, the other six days! אלא מאי he means the other days of the seven. So why doesn't he say clear אבל שאר ששת ימים, why seven? Then I have another שאלה, why does he say that מן התורה it's only the first day? Not the first, it's one day. If it's one day, there is no first, it's one. First means it's a whole week. So I

want to say that exactly based on what the רבי says in this שיחה in הלכות אישות, that in the first הלכה of הלכות אישות the רמב״ם is trying when he mentions how it was before מתן תורה he is trying to tell us that the marriage of now בעצם is the same as before מתן תורה, אלא מאי we need קידושין before, he wants to tell us same here, what is the גדר of אבילות? Before מתן תורה there was seven days of אבילות, why was it? As such was the nature of people, that's how people behaved. And even according to the, but the only thing was, it was before מתן תורה. When we have the דין of אבילות, so he said one of the seven days. It's not the פשט that this דין of one is a new concept. Seven days were there from before. So he said the other days but you don't have to if you don't want to, the תורה says. He says the one day you have to, that's why he says the first, because even though מן התורה only one day, it's one out of seven existing days. And that's why he says the rest of the seven days to tell us that all seven are all one ענין. Even though we only have one day, but all seven, it's not like one and then six. There are seven days, now out of the seven this one was what the תורה made. The first one was what the תורה made. So it comes out here that the רמב״ם is telling us here exactly the same thing he tells us there. There he tells us the כלל that this before מתן תורה קדושה that stayed, here it stays also.

According to this what the רבנן came and they made seven days of אבילות, they weren't מחדש any new things. See normally we think מן התורה was one day, came the רבנן they added six days. They didn't add anything. They came and said that we tell you מדרבנן that the other six days which is there as אבילות anyway we want to מחייב you. That's why there is seven days of אבילות naturally. Came the תורה and said one you're מחויב, the other ones you're not מחויב, the רבנן came and said the other ones you're מחויב also. I do want to add that the רמב״ם puts together that משה רבינו was מתקן seven days of אבילות, seven days of שבע ברכות, שבעת ימי המשתה. I want to say the same thing as over there too. Because in this week's פרשה we learn that there were seven days of שבע ברכות, how do we know? Says that after he married לאה, he said after seven days מלא שבוע זאת I'll marry רחל. Why didn't he marry the next day? Because he didn't want to mix the שמחה with שבע ברכות. So we see from here שבע ברכות. So I want to say like this, שבע ברכות is exactly the same thing, it's not the פשט the חכמים came and they made seven days of שבע ברכות as a new דין. They were naturally how people got married for seven days they celebrated, that was normal. Came the תורה they said you don't have to, you don't have to do it. The רבנן came and they said these seven days that are there anyway, we are מחייב you, we make you a דין. And according to one opinion it would be exactly like אבילות. Says one opinion that holds that the רמב״ם holds that by שבע ברכות the first day is מן התורה. So exactly the same thing, both are משה רבינו, מן התורה both the first day. And the other six days are מדרבנן. But what's the פשט that בעצם and they both obviously they're both בעצם like that, which is exactly רמב״ם. But one thing we see in this הלכה which you don't see over there,

here the רמב״ם uses the words, he quotes the פסוק, the form of תורה says ניתנה תורה, נתחדשה הלכה, when the תורה was given it's a new thing. So I want to say even though over there it doesn't say it, but the concept is the same and that's the basis of the מחלוקת between רב הונא and and and רבא and the others. Whether when the תורה was given and the תורה made a new הלכה, did the תורה change the מהות?