was all before there was no before מתן תורה. Now the Torah came and it's a chiyuv, but the Rambam doesn't mention נתחדשה הלכה, because it's not a real chiddush, because even now it remained the same מהות. So, but Rav Huna holds, no, now it changed מהות. Since it changed מהות, that's why it's a kinyan now not the מציאות of marriage, that's why it's possible that that kinyan should be used for kiddushin. While the Rambam paskens not like everyone that paskens like Rava, is because he holds that even now it remains with the מציאות. And the fact that נתחדשה הלכה is only the chiddush that before there was no chiyuv, now there is a chiyuv. But not that the מהות changed. If the מהות didn't change, it's impossible that chuppah should be used as kiddushin, because the whole thing is that chuppah is the מציאות of marriage and kiddushin has to be a kinyan, and therefore you can't make it. So according to the Rambam, the מהות didn't change. According to Rav Huna, it changed. Based on? Because the Torah was given and that was Now the way it was before doesn't count, cause now it's a new din. The Torah came and made a new din. And if in our case, the Rambam would have talked about the fact that that the Torah came and made a new mitzvah, it would have been more problematic and more helpful to to Rav Huna. To Rav Huna, exactly. The Rambam doesn't mention it. Exactly, exactly, exactly. In terms of the Tosafos, the question that the Tosafos had on the Maharshal Not the Tosafos, we had from the Tosafos on the Maharshal. So how would the Tosafot answer that that question? Why would the Tosafot? Tosafot doesn't have a question. No, we have a question on the Maharshal from this Tosafot. Right. So you ask how would the Maharshal answer it. So that's what I said. I answered how the Maharshal would answer it. Can you say mazal tov for twelve months? Yeah. No, twelve months, aveilut is twelve months. Not for simcha The din is, the din is

that you're allowed to say שהשמחה במעונו for twelve months. First twelve months. Because there is a concept of שנה ראשונה, the first year. That's for simcha. Yeah, but it's also connected to aveilut. And those are the only two that Moshe Rabbeinu did, marriage and aveilut? No, there are other things. He was מתקן קריאת התורה, there are other תקנות משה made. But that was a takana by Moshe Rabbeinu or Hashem giving that information? No, Moshe was one of the chachamim, and just like the chachamim later make takanot, he made a takana. That's how we get to halacha. We're talking about peshat, we're talking about peshat. לדעתי, halacha, yeah, how how we learn halacha, how you how you Sure, yeah, yeah, all the time, yeah. It's not just, you know, the Rashi and the Rif, it's everybody else. Named after them because they were the main, in the forefront of this, sure,

always. What about the opinion that holds like Rav Huna, is leading so today it's like halacha? How does So obviously he holds that together at least there's a possibility in his mind that chuppah is not like the Rambam, not that it's bad some מציאות, it's a real kinyan, and that's, yeah, that's what I'm saying. The biur I'm saying is a biur that the Rabbeinu Chananel feels that that could be the real פרט. And he's the only one who holds that though? Yeah, there are some that want to say the Rif holds like that. Like Rabbeinu Chananel. There's a machloket in the Rishonim what the Rif holds. Yeah, because on דף ג' it says עמוד ב' חופה, the Rif doesn't bring it, so it's not clear. Some say the Rif holds like this, some say the Rif holds like that. The Rambam doesn't say clearly either that חופה doesn't work as קידושין. But since he doesn't bring anywhere that it does, obviously he holds it's not. The Rambam holds like the kula of Rav and Abaye? The Maggid is not only on Rav and Abaye, it's everyone also. So they bring the halacha like Rav Huna. Fact that Abaye holds doesn't spoil it. If it'd be just Rav and Abaye, we know we paske'n like Rava, but since and Rav Huna also, so maybe we paske'n like Rav Huna. Yeah, that makes sense. How could anyone also say קידושין being the metziut of the of the That's not קידושין, the metziut of marriage, and the Torah said the Torah said that before נישואין you have to be koneh, no? That you have to be koneh before, no? How can you say, that's that's That means, you're going to say you don't have to be koneh, the Torah explicitly said to be koneh. Yeah, well, see, I've That's what he asked. He asked the kashya, it says three, not four. So he answered that there's a certain klal, that sometimes it says three because of a certain grouping. And this falls under one group. And it would make sense, because we're saying חופה is not like any of the other ones, that's the whole point, you know. חופה has could think because it's a metziut that it could be both, as opposed to kesef and bi'ah. That's, that's a different, that, that's another kushya. No, that's a kashya on the Gemara. How does Rava ask, it should have said four, when it's, according to you, I have a very simple answer. According to the Maharsha, I didn't want to ask it, because I ex-, the answer to this would be long. That's one of the kashiyot I wanted to

ask. Rava asks a kashya on Rav Huna, how could you say chuppah is kiddushin? It says in the Mishnah three, not four. I have a very simple answer. Chuppah is different than the other three. The other three only make kiddushin. According to Maharsha, chuppah will make kiddushin and נישואין, so that's, that's a different category, that's why the Mishnah doesn't say it. Yeah. So, why does he, so, how, how, how What's the answer to that? That's so long. What would be the answer to Rava's? Like, why is it so long? Why couldn't he just say, cuz we have a different opinion of what No, no, but according to the Maharsha, pshat in Rav Huna, Rava's kashya is no kashya. Right. So, what's Rava mean? How did the Maharsha learn pshat in Rava? Well, Maharsha and Rava don't hold the Oh. You can't say, oh, they have different Rava's Rava is asking a kashya on Rav Huna. Right. The Maharsha says, I'm telling you that Rav Huna means this and this. So, we're asking the Maharsha, according to you, if Rav Huna meant that, what did Rava ask? Obviously, it wasn't possible to ask. Rava can never ask such a kashya. Obviously, you're wrong. Obviously, that's not what Rav Huna meant. Cuz if you'd be right in what Rav Huna meant, then Rava could never ask such a question. Well, if Rava's arguing with Rav Huna, why can't he ask a kashya based on his theory? He's asking a kashya on Rav Huna. Yeah, on Rav Huna, based on Rava's view. Rava's kushya He's asking a kushya on Rav Huna. So, you have to know what Rav Huna says in order to ask a kushya. So, if you're telling me Rav Huna never said said this and this, Rav Huna, Rava's kushya is no kushya on Rav Huna. So, how do you know peshat in the Maharsha? But, but Rava asked a kushya that according to the Maharsha doesn't make sense, obviously that's a re'ayah that that's not what Rav Huna meant. Otherwise Rava wouldn't ask. So, what How do you answer something He's another 15 minutes. Okay. A מחלוקת של המלך and a מכה and this is Every 15 minutes we could have

the answer in 10 minutes, yeah. You could make a kinyan with כסף, שטר, ביאה. But כסף and שטר is easy to see how you could make Don't we define like what I mean, now this is where we would