On Teaching the Opening Lines of Kiddushin (2a-2b)

הָאִשָּׁה נִקְנֵית. מַאי שְׁנָא הָכָא דְּתָנֵי ״הָאִשָּׁה נִקְנֵית״ וּמַאי שְׁנָא הָתָם דְּתָנֵי ״הָאִישׁ מְקַדֵּשׁ״? מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא בָּעֵי לְמִיתְנֵי כֶּסֶף וְכֶסֶף מְנָא לַן? גָּמַר ״קִיחָה״ ״קִיחָה״ מִשְּׂדֵה עֶפְרוֹן. כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״כִּי יִקַּח אִישׁ אִשָּׁה״ וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״נָתַתִּי כֶּסֶף הַשָּׂדֶה קַח מִמֶּנִּי״ וְקִיחָה אִיקְּרִי ״קִנְיָן״ דִּכְתִיב: ״הַשָּׂדֶה אֲשֶׁר קָנָה אַבְרָהָם״. אִי נָמֵי ״שָׂדוֹת בַּכֶּסֶף יִקְנוּ״ תָּנֵי ״הָאִשָּׁה נִקְנֵית״.

The opening sugya of Bavli Kiddushin is a long and technical, even meandering, sugya. A series of questions and answers, including segments on passive and active verbs, masculine and feminine grammar structures, and the Mishnah’s choice of one synonym over another, drives the surface flow of the sugya. In preparing the sugya for our yeshiva high school classroom, we must anticipate the questions that our students will ask. Learning the sugya with those questions in mind shapes the teacher’s own learning in a profound way. In this sugya we can anticipate that students will ask: why does the Gemara care about whether דרך is a masculine or feminine noun? Is there a significant difference between דרכים and דברים? Sometimes even the Gemara’s answers raise questions for the students. For example the Gemara explains that the reason for the use of kinyan as opposed to kiddushin in our Mishnah is because kinyan is specifically associated with money (משום דקבעי למיתני כסף), one of the three betrothal methods listed in the Mishnah. This answer raises other questions. Why would the Mishnah select a word that applies to only one of the three betrothal methods? Would it not make more sense to select a word that is applicable to all three methods? In fact, the baal hasugya asks this very question towards the end of the sugya regarding the word דרכים.¹ Furthermore, is there meaning to be drawn from this answer or, to put it bluntly as a high school student might, “do I really need to care about these details?”

The sugya spans close to two daf and can be difficult for our students to synthesize. The challenge for the teacher is twofold: to organize the content to help the sugya cohere in the mind of the student, and to do whatever it takes to make the questions and answers “make sense” so that students can draw meaning from its content. Having studied the first Mishnah in detail,² students are well situated to trace the arc of this opening sugya. This is an excellent example of an opening sugya of a masekhet,³ itself a genre that has been studied and further developed by many scholars in recent years.⁴ To unpack the Gemara, we first review the content and structure of the first Mishnah.

The Questions

האשה נקנית בשלש דרכים וקונה את עצמה בשתי דרכים. נקנית בכסף בשטר ובביאה…וקונה את עצמה בגט ובמיתת הבעל. היבמה נקנית בביאה. וקונה את עצמה בחליצה ובמיתת היבם.

A woman is acquired in three ways and acquires herself in two ways. She is acquired through money, a document, and relations…She acquires herself through a bill of divorce or if her husband dies. A yevamah is acquired through relations and acquires herself through chalitzah or the death of the yavam.

As an opening exercise, I ask students to divide the Mishnah into a reisha and a seifa. Many students quickly discover 1) that the reisha of the Mishnah is much longer than the seifa and 2) that the reisha differs in structure from the seifa of this Mishnah as well as from the other Mishnayot in the chapter.

האשה נקנית בשלש דרכים וקונה את עצמה בשתי דרכים.

נקנית בכסף בשטר ובביאה.

…..

וקונה את עצמה בגט ובמיתת הבעל.

היבמה נקנית בביאה

וקונה את עצמה בחליצה ובמיתת היבם.

Students readily identify how this Mishnah might have been written to parallel the style of the rest of the series of Mishnayot:

האשה נקנית בכסף שטר וביאה וקונה את עצמה בגט ובמיתת הבעל.

This would precisely parallel

היבמה נקנית בביאה וקונה את עצמה בחליצה ובמיתת היבם.

Instead, the Mishnah begins with a “wordy” introductory sentence. In fact, this introduction does not even introduce the entire series of Mishnayot concerning kinyanim; rather, it only serves as an introduction to the first half of the first Mishnah of the perek. If we studied the Mishnah as we have been trained to study Chumash, we would wonder about the seemingly unnecessary words in the Mishnah.⁵ Students are trained to assume the parsimoniousness of sacred texts and note the seemingly superfluous words in those texts. Reading this Mishnah closely, they ask, “Why include this lengthy introduction in the Mishnah?” This question will inform our study of the entire opening sugya, which indeed provides detailed interpretation of each word in this opening sentence. With this in mind, we are able to tackle the first segment of the opening sugya.

הָאִשָּׁה נִקְנֵית. מַאי שְׁנָא הָכָא דְּתָנֵי הָאִשָּׁה נִקְנֵית וּמַאי שְׁנָא הָתָם דְּתָנֵי הָאִישׁ מְקַדֵּשׁ מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא בָּעֵי לְמִיתְנֵי כֶּסֶף וְכֶסֶף מְנָא לַן גָּמַר קִיחָה קִיחָה מִשְּׂדֵה עֶפְרוֹן כְּתִיב הָכָא כִּי יִקַּח אִישׁ אִשָּׁה וּכְתִיב הָתָם נָתַתִּי כֶּסֶף הַשָּׂדֶה קַח מִמֶּנִּי וְקִיחָה אִיקְּרִי קִנְיָן דִּכְתִיב הַשָּׂדֶה אֲשֶׁר קָנָה אַבְרָהָם אִי נָמֵי שָׂדוֹת בַּכֶּסֶף יִקְנוּ תָּנֵי הָאִשָּׁה נִקְנֵית

What is different here that [the Mishnah] teaches: “A woman is acquired,” and what is different there [in a latter Mishnah], which teaches: A man betroths,” because it wanted to teach money. And from where do we derive “money” as a form of kiddushin? It derives taking-taking from the field of Ephron. It is written here, “When a man takes a woman” (Devarim 24:1), and it is written there, “I will give money for the field; take it from me” (Bereishit 23:13). And “taking” is called an acquisition as it is written “The field which Abraham acquired.” Alternatively, “They shall acquire fields with money” (Yirmiyahu 32:44). Consequently, he taught: “A woman is acquired.”

Bavli Kiddushin begins by comparing the opening words of our Mishnah in chapter 1 with the opening words of another Mishnah in the masekhet. In its typical style, the Gemara asks a textual question: why does our Mishnah use the language of האשה נקנית while this other Mishnah uses the language of האיש מקדש? Students sense that each of these Mishnayot refers to the same act of betrothal, and yet the action is described using different words in the respective Mishnayot.

Although one can see the textual difference we cannot assume that the question of the Gemara is clear to all readers. I ask students to raise any possible question that arises from comparing these two phrases. They immediately see that in fact two different questions can be asked. First why does one Mishnah focus on the woman האשה and relatedly use the passive verb while the other focuses on the man האיש and uses an active verb? Second why does our Mishnah use a language of acquisition קנין while the other Mishnah uses the language of sanctity קידושין? When broken down this way students see that it is not adequate to simply identify that there is a difference between these texts; we must determine the question with precision. Rashi explains that our question is the second of the two questions above: why does the Mishnah use the language of קנין here and the language of קידושין in Chapter 2?⁶ We will return to the other difference (האיש-האשה) later in the sugya.

Before moving forward in the text, I ask students to suggest possible answers to the Gemara’s opening textual question. By considering the question independently and suggesting a possible answer, the students internalize the factors that comprise the question and propose a path forward. It is validating when a student anticipates an answer given in the Gemara. It can be equally meaningful when a student suggests a reasonable answer that is not posited by the Gemara. That prompts the student to reflect: what did I miss? Can I explain why the Gemara chose the path that it did? Is the suggestion of the Gemara more compelling? Sometimes the Gemara’s path is more compelling to the student; sometimes less so. With two possible paths forward, one can more fully appreciate the moves of the sugya, explaining why the sugya opted to proceed in one direction rather than the other.

The Answer

Since our class learned the first chapter of Mishnah Kiddushin prior to studying this sugya,⁷ I ask students what answer, based on the Mishnah alone, they would offer to the Gemara’s question. The first half of the first chapter of Mishnah lists the various types of “acquisitions”—the “acquiring” of women, of slaves, of property, and of chattel. A straightforward reading of the perek suggests a simple answer: the Mishnah uses the term kinyan because acquiring a wife is one in a long list of acquisitions that are described in the chapter.

This is important to note because the baal hasugya chooses a different path.⁸ Seen against the background of a (rather obvious) alternative, the Gemara’s proposal becomes sharper. The core of the Gemara’s answer to this question is משום דקבעי למיתני כסף, because one of the three methods of betrothal is כסף — money and valuables which are used to complete acquisitions. Read against the alternative the Gemara is narrowing the scope of the term קנין. Betrothal is not itself a kinyan; rather כסף one of the methods of betrothal, is a form of kinyan.

When we read uncritically, we accept the flow of the text as we find it. When we read against the grain, we explore alternate interpretations to the dominant, plain reading of the text. When we read the sugya in this way, we ask “what the various rhetorical moves do, rather than acquiescing to their own claims as questions and answers.”⁹ The text’s work is often found beyond its straightforward meaning. When we read a text of Gemara, the surrounding texts inform our understanding of what we are reading. The textual context informs how I read a text.¹⁰ In our sugya, reading the Mishnah alongside the other Mishnayot in the chapter provides a context through which we determine that kiddushin is one among a list of kinyanim listed in the perek. However, when one reads the opening of the sugya, the reader does not “notice” the context of the complete chapter of Mishnah. Instead, the baal hasugya provides a context of verses from Tanakh that creates the space for a different understanding of the use of kinyan in the Mishnah.

Read from this perspective, the Gemara is subtly addressing the very question that troubles students: why does our Mishnah use the language of kinyan if there is a different word (kiddushin) used in the second perek? (For our students, this means: why does the Mishnah use the language of kinyan at all, especially given the alternative, kiddushin, a term that conveys the sanctity of the marriage?) Through its alternative response, the Gemara limits the scope of the term kinyan. The language of kinyan relates to only one of the three betrothal methods, suggesting that if not for the particular method of kesef, we would not have needed to reference kinyan at all. In other words, kiddushin is not a kinyan; one of the methods of kiddushin is a kinyan.

Many questions remain. Why do we have two distinct terms (kinyan and kiddushin) for the same act of betrothal? Why are both terms, kiddushin and kinyan, preserved in the Mishnah? Why is the kiddushin term used in all but this one instance? If a man does betroth a woman using money or valuables, is it indeed a conventional kinyan, an acquisition? To answer these questions, we must continue to unpack the details of this opening segment of the sugya.

Marriage as Kinyan

וְכֶסֶף מְנָא לַן גָּמַר קִיחָה קִיחָה מִשְּׂדֵה עֶפְרוֹן כְּתִיב הָכָא כִּי יִקַּח אִישׁ אִשָּׁה וּכְתִיב הָתָם נָתַתִּי כֶּסֶף הַשָּׂדֶה קַח מִמֶּנִּי וְקִיחָה אִיקְּרִי קִנְיָן דִּכְתִיב הַשָּׂדֶה אֲשֶׁר קָנָה אַבְרָהָם אִי נָמֵי שָׂדוֹת בַּכֶּסֶף יִקְנוּ

And from where do we derive money? We derive taking-taking from the field of Ephron. It is written here “When a man takes a woman” (Devarim 24:1), and it is written there, “I will give money for the field; take it from me” (Bereishit 23:13). And taking is called an acquisition as it is written: “The field which Abraham acquired.” Or also, “They will acquire fields with money (Yirmiyahu 32:44).

This subsection of the sugya seems clear on its surface. However, upon further review, a number of questions arise:¹¹

1. Every high school student who has studied Masekhet Kiddushin recognizes the gezeirah shavah of קיחה-קיחה משדה עפרון,¹² and yet the purpose for bringing this drasha as part of the answer is less clear.¹³ This limmud establishes a connection between the marital bond on the one hand and the purchase of real estate on the other. The association of marriage and real estate is unsettling to our modern mindset, and students notice it. When they do, they quickly–often too quickly–express their unease. As a teacher of Gemara, one of my recurring asks is for students to slow down, have patience, and grant the Gemara some time so that it can speak to us.

This gezeirah shavah is even more surprising when we compare the source as brought here at the opening of the masekhet with the same source as cited later on (4b) or in the Sifrei. When the Gemara cites this source for kesef (4b), it does not derive it from a gezeirah shavah:

דתניא: כי יקח איש אשה ובעלה והיה אם לא תמצא חן בעיניו כי מצא בה וגו’ אין קיחה אלא בכסף וכן הוא אומר נתתי כסף השדה קח ממני.

As it is taught in a beraita: “When a man takes a woman and engages in sexual intercourse with her, and it comes to pass, if she finds no favor in his eyes, because he has found some unseemly matter in her…” (Devarim 24:1), in this verse, the term taking is only with money. And so it says: “I will give money for the field; take it from me” (Bereishit 23:13).

The beraita thinks that the plain meaning of the word יקח refers to a monetary transaction. It does not derive this through a gezeirah shavah. It is the simple meaning of the word. The Sifrei also understands that the simple meaning of יקח is a financial transaction.¹⁴ The Sifrei does not even refer to Avraham’s purchase at all! It is our opening sugya which uniquely uses the gezeirah shavah method as the source for kinyan kesef, demonstrating the meaning of the word from Avraham’s purchase of Me’arat Hamachpelah. This suggests that the baal hasugya intentionally structured the derivation in this way for the purposes of this sugya. How might we explain this?

2. Furthermore, when we look carefully at this gezeirah shavah, we see that the cases are not parallel. In the story of Avraham’s purchase of Me’arat Hamachpelah, the word קיחה refers to the money that is being transferred (כסף השדה קח ממני) while in the verse regarding marriage קיחה refers to the woman herself (כי יקח איש אשה). This reinforces our uncertainty regarding the “authenticity” of this gezeirah shavah.¹⁵

3. If the goal of the Gemara is to show that the language of kinyan is used in financial transaction cases why quote the verse regarding marriage at all? The Gemara could have simply said משום דקבעי למיתני כסף וכסף איקרי קנין. This would have accomplished the goal without the added layer of this relatively weak gezeirah shavah.¹⁶

4. Finally, as Rabbeinu Tam notes,¹⁷ if kesef of marriage is indeed derived from the purchase of real estate the entire argument collapses! Real estate is acquired through money a document or possession (כסף שטר וחזקה) — precisely paralleling the methods of kiddushin.¹⁸ The language of kinyan can apply equally to each of the three betrothal methods. Highlighting the connection to the acquisition of real estate ultimately negates the Gemara’s answer (משום דקבעי למיתני כסף).

Taken together, these questions and insights reveal that the sugya did not need to bring this gezeirah shavah to make its point. Furthermore, using the gezeirah shavah might actually weaken the answer of the Gemara because of the questions that this limmud brings to the fore. Did the baal hasugya miss these questions? Can we find purpose in drawing this connection between betrothal and the purchase of Me’arat Hamachpelah?

Uri Lifschitz suggests that the technical weakness of the gezeirah shava calls out to the reader to strengthen the limmud by discovering meaning in the association between betrothal and Avraham’s purchase of the land. In our case, this small segment of the sugya connects marriage to two specific biblical real estate purchases. The purchase of Me’arat Hamachpelah is the first land acquired by the Jewish people in the land of Israel. This land will house our forebears for eternity. The Gemara offers a second connection, this time to a verse in Yirmiyahu. The verse describes a time immediately prior to the destruction of the Temple and the exile of the Jewish people from Israel. That purchase signals the Jewish people’s eternal connection to Eretz Yisrael and a belief that they will return to Israel at the conclusion of the exile.¹⁹

The verbal connection established through the gezeirah shavah achieves a gentle reframing. Acquiring real estate in Israel, particularly in the cited circumstances of burial of the dead and preceding the exile from Israel, demonstrates the long term commitment of the Jewish people to these lands. These purchases indicate the way that the Jewish people have planted their future in the land of Israel with hope and for generations. A kinyan often represents a simple exchange of value – a barter of sorts. But a sense of permanence is part of every kinyan. Once transacted, there is no going back.²⁰ In our sugya, the Gemara does not seek to sideline kinyan, on the one hand, nor is it accepting that marriage is simply a type of object acquisition, on the other. The kinyan kiddushin is a statement of long-term commitment from the man to the woman through this financial exchange.

The Gemara is acknowledging kinyan as long-term commitment; a commitment that was originally backed by the significant gift of the mohar.²¹ From this perspective, we can explain the rhetorical move of the sugya. The Gemara explicitly explains why the kinyan terminology is used here, rejecting the obvious explanation (i.e., that is the theme of the chapter) in the process. It is not that marriage is an acquisition for the man similar to the other acquisitions in the chapter. Rather, marriage has one aspect that carries the qualities of financial transaction–משום דקבעי למיתני כסף.

Economics and the Marital Bond

The Gemara now turns to the other side of the question. If betrothal’s monetary aspect conveys commitment through the language of kinyan, why not use that term in the second perek as well?

וניתני התם האיש קונה מעיקרא תני לישנא דאורייתא ולבסוף תני לישנא דרבנן

Then let him teach there, “A man acquires”? He [the Tanna] first taught biblical language, but subsequently, rabbinic language.

In the simplest reading of this sentence, the Gemara is making a linguistic point. The Torah uses a particular word for betrothal and the Mishnah uses a different word. These texts reflect a shift in vocabulary.²² If we interpret these metaphors conceptually,²³ this can be read as quite a foundational sentence. The Gemara proposes that the two terms for betrothal refer to two distinct conceptual frameworks for betrothal. One is biblical in origin and the other is rabbinic. The biblical frame is kinyan, connoting a financial commitment, while the rabbinic frame is kiddushin, a rabbinic term whose connotation needs to be further explicated. What does the baal hasugya seek to convey by distinguishing the terms as de’oraita and derabanan? This distinction usually points to a difference in authoritative weight. For example in cases of uncertainty one can be lenient in rabbinic cases (ספיקא דרבנן לקולא) but must be stringent in Torah law (ספיקא דאורייתא לחומרא). That does not seem to be the implication here. In fact this terminological distinction of לישנא דאורייתא and לישנא דרבנן appears only this one time in the entire Talmud. What precisely is the Gemara teaching?

If students have learned all of the mishnayot in the masekhet, they should note, with some prompting, that the language of kinyan appears only once, here at the beginning of the tractate. Kiddushin is the term that is used for the remainder of this masekhet that bears its name. Considered from a quantitative perspective, it is striking that the baal hasugya declares that this single-use term reflects the biblical concept which was so superseded by the rabbinic term. This might indicate that the kiddushin term superseded kinyan. While Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi retained the language of kinyan in this first Mishnah in the context of the broader perek, he opted to prioritize the kiddushin aspect of betrothal. Rav Shagar incorporates the historical dimension into his interpretation of this Gemara:

את הפן ההיסטורי של השינוי יוכל התלמיד להפיק מן המחקר שיעמוד על התפתחות ההלכה מהתפיסה המקראית – הרואה באישה רכוש ומשווה בין יכולת האב למוכרה לשפחה לבין מוסד הנישואין – אל תפיסה מעודנת יותר שבה לשון ״דאורייתא״ של קנין מפנה את מקומה ללשון חכמים של קידושין.²⁴

In this understanding, the baal hasugya conveys that the kinyan term, and the innovation that it represents, is an older, biblical concept. Elsewhere, we have explained the social significance of the monetary aspect of betrothal as a sign of commitment.²⁵ While the Mishnah preserves that language here the Sages shifted the focus of the betrothal toward a more refined (מעודנת) language of kedushah–sanctity and separation. The quantitative imbalance — compare the number of times that Chazal use the term kinyan to the number of times they use kiddushin when referring to betrothal — indicates the preference for the language of kiddushin while preserving the original kinyan term to open the masekhet. The baal haGemara uses the terms מעיקרא (at first) and לבסוף (subsequently) which can simply be understood in a linear fashion describing the actual order of the Mishnah. Rav Shagar interprets it as a temporal statement describing the historical shift from kinyan to kiddushin, which might roughly parallel the shift from mohar to ketubah.

This historical approach to kinyan kiddushin distinguishes between the earlier historical period when the kinyan was central and a later period when the Rabbis shifted the emphasis of betrothal by developing the kiddushin terminology.²⁶ This approach attempts to sideline the financial element in the marriage. Rav Shagar’s supersessionist approach is difficult to accept. First, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi preserved both terms in the Mishnah. The Gemara then explains the reason for and the difference between kinyan and kiddushin, suggesting that each has a role to play in the marriage.

Rather than interpreting the Gemara as sidelining the kinyan idea by historicizing it, Uri Lifschitz suggests that the sugya is not trying to minimize the role of kinyan in marriage; it is, in fact, leaning into and deepening the idea of kinyan. The kinyan kiddushin is a statement of long-term commitment from the man to the woman through this financial exchange. In a world like ours where sex requires consent to be legal but does not require commitment, the Torah teaches something countercultural. If a man and woman have sex, that signals a lifelong commitment to each other.²⁷ That can happen through sex itself (ביאה) a written commitment (שטר) or valuables (כסף). Just as monetary exchange conveys long term commitment in the cases of Me’arat Hamachpelah and the purchase of land prior to the exile, the monetary exchange at the time of betrothal indicates long term commitment between husband and wife.

Rav Yisrael Gustmann interprets the opening lines of Yerushalmi Kiddushin to reflect this idea.²⁸ The Yerushalmi states:

הָאִשָּׁה נִיקְנֵית בְּשָׁלֹשׁ דְּרָכִים כול׳. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא. אוֹ בְּכֶסֶף אוֹ בִּשְׁטָר אוֹ בְּבִיאָה. וְתַנֵּי רִבִּי חִייָה כֵן. לֹא סוֹף דָּבָר בִּשְׁלָשְׁתָּן אֶלָּא אֲפִילוּ בְאֶחָד מֵהֶן…הֲרֵי לָמַדְנוּ שֶׁהָאִשָּׁה נִיקְנֵית בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה דְּרָכִים. אוֹ בְכֶסֶף אוֹ בִשְׁטָר אוֹ בְבִיאָה

“A wife may be acquired in three ways,” etc. So is the Mishnah: Either by money, or by document, or by intercourse. Rebbi Chiyya stated as follows: Not only by all three together, but even by any one of them…So we inferred that a woman can be acquired in three ways: by money, or by document, or by intercourse.

Rav Gustmann notes that the Yerushalmi entertains the possibility that the husband might be required to perform all three methods of betrothal, with money, with a document, and through sexual intimacy. In fact, we realize that the letter vav that connects the three methods is most often understood to mean “and,” which, so understood, would require all three methods. The opening sugya of the Yerushalmi sets out to prove that this is not the case. The letter vav in the Mishnah should be read as “or,” allowing the man to betroth the woman using any one of these methods. Rav Gustmann proposes that initial consideration of the Yerushalmi derives from the idea that different elements combine in the creation of the marital bond. He writes,

מבואר דישנן בקדושין ג’ ענינים: א) קנין האשה נקנית לבעלה וזהו לישנא דאורייתא. וז”ל תוס’ כתובות דף ב ע”ב בד”ה מציא אמרה: ועוד דהאשה היא שדה של הבעל ואין הבעל שדה שלה עכ”ל. ב) איסור דאסר לה אכולי עלמא כהקדש וזהו לישנא דרבנן. וז”ל תוס’ בסוגיין ד”ה מאי שנא הכא… מיהו אומר הר”ר מנוח דה”מ למיתני וניתרת דגבי קדושין שייך לשון היתר עכ”ל. כוונת הר”ר מנוח דכיון דקדושין הוא ענין איסור א”כ גירושין שהוא היפוך מקדושין שייך ביה לשון היתר… ג) התייחדות לאישות וכמו שכתבו תוס’ שזהו פשטא דמילתא מיוחדת לי ומזומנת לי.²⁹

The three betrothal methods כסף שטר וביאה represent three elements that together comprise the marital bond.³⁰ For Rav Gustmann, Marriage is an economic bond. The husband is primarily responsible for the financial security of the family. The couple works together to ensure that their own and their children’s basic and more developed needs are provided. The contractual bond reflects the singular commitment that the man and woman have for each other, to the exclusion of other relationships. The third method expresses that intimacy is a central aspect of the marital relationship.

Our sugya, then, is not trying to minimize the kinyan concept. The sugya is teaching that both of these aspects, the financial factor and the singular commitment, are both retained in the language of the Mishnayot in the masekhet. Rabbi Yehuda NaNasi retained the language of kinyan while primarily using the language of kiddushin, thereby maintaining a presence for the role that each plays in establishing the foundation of a strong marital bond. The third aspect, sexual intimacy, is raised later in this introductory sugya, as we will explore elsewhere.

This offers an opportunity for class discussion to explore the elements that constitute the marriage commitment, including the hopes and expectations that we have of marriage and family. Through my experience with teens over the years, I believe that popular media fosters unrealistic and overly simplistic expectations of long-term intimate relationships—love at first sight and lives filled with romance devoid of the worries of finances, health, and the hard work of family building. Having being raised in the “romantic utopia,”³¹ students instinctively think that romance and love are the building blocks of a healthy marriage. Love conquers all, and money should not be a decisive part of the marriage ceremony. But the history of marriage is more complex. For example, for centuries, marriage was a mechanism for creating bonds across political lines and was important for ensuring family status.³² As we have seen, economic security is another significant reason for marriage. This has been especially true in societies where women did not have independent earning power. Considered from this perspective, the sugya offers an opportunity for students to discuss different aspects of the long term relationship of Jewish marriage. Students can consider the economic aspect of marriage alongside the more intimate or sanctified element of the marriage. Rather than seeking to shrink the aspect of kinyan, the sugya seeks to establish both concepts of kinyan and kiddushin as valid and important.

Through the twinning of kinyan and kiddushin, we learn about the values and commitments through which deep, long-term bonds are built. In this way, this initially strange Gemara challenges our high school students to move beyond the overly simplistic view of marriage to explore (yes, in high school) the elements that make for a strong marriage. I do not suggest that the Gemara is a modern text. I suggest that Rav Huna Gaon of Sura, the author of this sugya, is highlighting that the different components must work together towards building a strong marriage and that, therefore, there is real space for our students to draw Jewish meaning from these texts, meaning that can inform the way that they approach relationships in the future.

Marriage as Kiddushin

Finally, the Gemara notes that we have not yet precisely defined the meaning of kiddushin. For the baal hasugya, it does not suffice to define kiddushin as “holy,” as many of us might. Chazal interpreted the word קדושים as פרושים separate.³³ The Gemara asks:

ומאי לישנא דרבנן? דאסר לה אכולי עלמא כהקדש.

And what is the [meaning] of the rabbinic language? That he [the husband] prohibits her to all [other men] like hekdesh.

Hekdesh refers to an object or property that is given to the mikdash as a donation or the dedication of an animal for sacrifice. Significantly, the method for transferring ownership of objects to the Mikdash is described in Mishnah 6 of our first perek of Kiddushin as the chapter shifts from the opening topic of kinyanim to the second half of the perek which focuses on mitzvot.³⁴ Objects that are kadosh are set aside from common use and are singularly dedicated for use in the mikdash. The Gemara asks, what did the Rabbis intend in instituting the language of kiddushin? The term conveys that after kiddushin, all men are prohibited to this woman. She, like consecrated objects, is set aside from “common” use.

Still, the association with hekdesh requires further elaboration. The Mishnah that concludes the kinyanim section of this first perek describes a transfer to hekdesh as אמירתו לגבוה כמסירתו להדיוט, that a verbal declaration of transfer to hekdesh is similar to a physical transfer to a peer. This suggests that hekdesh itself is a form of transaction, still maintaining an aspect of kinyan, but one where a verbal declaration suffices. Furthermore, the verbal declaration designates an object as hekdesh without the need for a response from the object or any other participant to the transaction. The declaration alone consecrates the object, setting it aside for sacred use and separate from any general use. Is the Gemara’s analogy to hekdesh intended precisely? If the kiddushin term for marriage is drawing directly from the hekdesh concept, we can conclude that, while the lishna derabanan of kiddushin brings sanctifying language to the marital transaction, the marital ceremony remains androcentric with the woman as the passive object of the marital consecration.³⁵

Tosafot³⁶ explores these issues through a consideration of the meaning of הרי את מקודשת לי the declaration that the man makes to his bride. If we apply the literal meaning of the word mekudeshet to the sentence the man is saying to his bride “you are separate from me.” That is the exact opposite of what the man intends! Tosafot proposes two explanations for this declaration. The first loosens the meaning of the word לי. Technically the husband is saying “you are separated from all other men for me,” or on my behalf. This interpretation relies on a literal understanding of the lishna derabanan “דאסר לה אכולי עלמא כהקדש.” According to this explanation the husband is addressing his bride but the content of the sentence is focused on the prohibition of others to his bride. Although mekudeshet refers to something sanctified following this interpretation it is less a romantic exchange between the couple than a statement of the legal status of the woman. Tosafot suggests an alternative reading: the simple meaning (פשטא דמילתא) loosens the definition of the word מקודשת. In this context the word mekudeshet means singularly devoted (מיוחדת ומזומנת) to me. According to this interpretation the analogy to hekdesh is less exact and the husband is more directly addressing the relationship between them.

After confirming that students understand the two interpretations, I ask them which interpretation most resonates with them. The majority of students tend to connect with the second interpretation more than the first, although many students prefer the precision of the first. Resonance aside, virtually all students acknowledge that the first suggestion is technically more precise than the second, at least in terms of the definition of kiddushin that this sugya offers. This prompts some discussion about the challenges at the intersection of interpretation and culture. Is the second interpretation of Tosafot “less authentic” to the original meaning of the concept of kiddushin? Tosafot refers to this interpretation as pashta demilta, the basic meaning of the text based on the context of the sentence. Each suggestion reflects an interpretive strategy.

I try to make this explicit to students (although it is difficult for some students to grasp). Often, students interpret halakhic texts based on their intuition, instinct, or what makes the most sense to them. Since Torah study is based on textual justification, we must train our students to read the text carefully; to suggest what they think the text is saying, not what they hope the text is saying or what they think the text should say.

The second half of Tosafot expands the understanding of the kiddushin concept by testing it against comparable language regarding hekdesh. Tosafot distinguishes hekdesh as sacred object from kiddushin as sacred bond by positing that the language of מקודש/מקודשת is different from הקדש. Grammatically מקודשת is the passive pu’al form of the verb, implying an interaction with another in contrast to hekdesh, a noun. The word מקודשת is valid when a second participating individual is involved. It therefore is only valid between people and is not valid for objects.³⁷ In this way, Tosafot further loosens the analogy between hekdesh and kiddushin, distinguishing marriage from the transactional and object-associated nature of hekdesh. Kiddushin is a bond between two consenting individuals, while hekdesh is a one-directional consecration by an owner of an object.

Practically, I often do not teach the second half of the Tosafot in class. To properly comprehend Tosafot’s point, students require a deeper understanding of the mechanics of hekdesh as well as a sensitivity to Hebrew grammar. At this point, it is often difficult for students to focus on the necessary details. Even when I do not focus on the second half of the Tosafot, I know that my understanding of it informs the way that I teach the first half. Tosafot is raising an essential question: given the hekdesh analogy, what, precisely, is the man conveying to the woman through the act of kiddushin?

Conclusion

After studying the first segment of the opening sugya, we can highlight the central points. We have seen that the baal hasugya:

1. Asked about the use of kinyan language in our Mishnah. This is the very question that our students–and we–ask today.
2. Shifted the reader’s attention away from the context of the full perek of Mishnah and, instead, focused the reader’s attention on the monetary method for executing the kiddushin.
3. Concluded that the language of kiddushin resulted from an addition to (or a change from) the kinyan language of the Torah by Chazal.
4. Understood that the language of kiddushin is drawn from the consecration language of hekdesh.
5. Is teaching that the kinyan and kiddushin terms each represents a distinct aspect of a strong marital bond.

Rather than focus on many Rishonim, I seek to help students understand what Rashi tries to do and how to correctly read and fully comprehend the steps in a Rashi. We learn one text of the Rishonim. In our instance, Tosafot explored the contours of kiddushin as adapted from the hekdesh concept. What precisely is the man saying to the woman? What role does the woman have in this transaction?

These teachings will come up constantly throughout one’s learning of the masekhet. That is the power of these lines as an introduction to the study of the masechet.

Methodologically, I have a firm belief that, as teachers, close reading of the Gemara, determined research, and constantly anticipating how our students will instinctively read the Gemara can combine to help us make sense of each line of the Gemara so that our students can draw contemporary insight and meaning from their learning. Too often, we read through the Gemara in order to engage the “more dynamic” Rishonim and Acharonim. The first segment of the opening sugya in Kiddushin serves as an example of a “hard text” that, thoughtfully considered, can speak directly to our students’ lives in a meaningful and values-filled way.

Excursus

As mentioned in the paper, my focus in class is on reading and interpreting the text of the Gemara. Rishonim in various places offer a variety of ways to understand the nature of the kinyan and kiddushin. To my knowledge, none of the Rishonim focus on this line of the Gemara. I share a brief review of some of the views of the Rishonim and the sources that they cite as a point of contrast to the interpretive possibilities presented through focusing the text of the Gemara.

Tosafot HaRosh (Ketuvot 2a) based on the Gemara in Kiddushin 5a writes משום דהאישה קניין כספו של האיש כמו עבדו שורו וחמורו ותלויה במזלו. Without delving into the specifics of the sugya in Ketuvot we can clearly see that the Rosh understands kiddushin to be a kinyan in the common transactional sense. The husband has some type of standard ownership over the wife. Similarly in Tosafot HaRosh on Kiddushin 5a he writes כיוון שמושל עליה ומשועבדת לו מקרי קניין כספו אפילו קנאה בשטר ובביאה.

In contrast the Meiri on our sugya writes האשה נקנית למקדש לעניין שלא יהא אחר יכול לזכות בה ושאינה ניתרת לשום אדם עוד בחייו אלא בגט. For Meiri the kinyan aspect is limited to the permissibility and prohibition of intimacy. As Rav Soloveitchik describes it, kiddushin is a ‘matir’, it legitimizes sexual intimacy for the couple and affirms an issur, a prohibitive limit for others regarding this woman. The Acharonim often refer to this as kinyan ishut, an acquisition of intimacy rights. This is one way to acknowledge and limit the scope of betrothal as kinyan.

Ramban (Gittin 9a) offers a third possibility: אבל זו אינה דומה למשנתנו שאין אשה זו ממונו של בעל אלא ברשות עצמה היא להנשא ואנן לא מנעינן לה. Ramban rejects the comparison between a financial document which refers to an object transfer on the one hand and marital and divorce documents on the other. No object is involved in the latter case; it is an arrangement between the man and the woman. For Ramban kiddushin is an entirely different type of kinyan.

Many contemporary shiurim focus on the dispute between the Sema and Taz (Shulkhan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 190:1-2) as to whether kinyan kesef is, in general, a symbolic or a value transaction. That makhloket is then extended to the kiddushin discussion.³⁸

Other than Rav Y. Gustmann almost all of these contemporary shiurim do not focus on the lines of the Gemara in our sugya which distinguish between לישנא דאורייתא and לישנא דרבנן and the ways to interpret that sentence. In contrast we focus on understanding and interpreting the sentence in the context of the larger sugya. In my tenth grade class, we remain with the text of the Gemara and do not engage with the Rishonim and Acharonim that certainly make for an excellent shiur, although towards different goals.

1. See Tosafot 2a s.v. משום
2. “A Brief History of Marriage: Reading Mishnah Kiddushin 1:1,” accessible at https://machonsiach.org/a-brief-history-of-jewish-marriage-teaching-kiddushin-11/.
3. Ramban notes that this sugya is a Savoraic text authored by Rav Huna Gaon of Sura (Hiddushei HaRamban to Kiddushin 2a):מצינו בתשובת הגאונים ז”ל דכל הני דהך סוגיא עד הכא הוא דבתר הוראה ומר רב הונא גאון מסורא איהו תני לה ואיהו דאסר בגטא וביומוהי תקינו תקנתא דמורדת דנהיגו בה הגאונים ז”ל ואפ”ה טרחנא לעיל לפרושא ולמפרך ותרוצי בה [כמו] בגמר’ [דסוגיא] דרבנן סבוראי דוקא היא
4. Meirav Suissa, “Saboraic Introductory Sugyot in the Babylonian Talmud: Their Contribution to the Tractate” (Masters Thesis, Bar Ilan University, 2007) [Hebrew]. Yehuda Brandes, HaMeshucha HaRishona in Al Derekh HaAvot: Shloshim Shana L’Mikhlelet Yaakov Herzog, (Hotza’at Tevunot: Alon Shevut, 2011), pp. 33-41 [Hebrew].
5. The question of whether we should read Mishnah with the same sensitivity that we read Chumash in a thought provoking question that we return to throughout this opening sugya as well as in Tosafot s.v. האשה and Meiri ad loc.
6. In fact considered carefully we realize that we also don’t know the location of this second Mishnah. I can ask students what הכא and התם mean. They will know the translations. But to what do the words refer? Easily they will say הכא is our Mishnah. And where is התם? Some students who have learned the Mishnayot of the masekhet will know that it refers to the beginning of the second perek. This is an excellent example for demonstrating the crucial role of Rashi when learning Gemara. More than simply “learning Gemara with Rashi,” we need to identify why Rashi steps in when he does and what information he is providing. As a high school teacher it is vital that we develop strategies to teach our students how to read commentaries and understand what different Rishonim are attempting to do.The first Rashi on the Gemara s.v. מאי שנא התם states

   מאי שנא התם. בפרק שני דתנא האיש מקדש בו ובשלוחו ניתני הכא האשה מתקדשת

   The first task is to break the Rashi into segments. On the first day of class, and then many times during the year, I point out that the period in Rashi does not carry the meaning that we assume when reading a book. The period simply distinguishes between the words of the Gemara and Rashi’s commentary. In recent years, printed Gemarot feature a bold font to distinguish between the words of the Gemara and of Rashi. Students must develop the habit of (in some cases) reading through the period in order to properly understand the Rashi.

   In this instance we note that Rashi does not comment on מאי שנא הכא. He begins with a comment on מאי שנא התם. His first goal is to inform the reader where to find this Mishnah: מאי שנא התם בפרק שני” דתנא האיש מקדש בו ובשלוחו.” It is also useful to ask students to identify what part of the Rashi requires quotation marks.

   Rashi has located the second Mishnah for us. We now know that the Gemara is comparing the first Mishnah in Chapter 1 with the first Mishnah in Chapter 2. Through this work we have also isolated the second part of the Rashi: ניתני הכא האשה מתקדשת. Students see the word הכא and many are able to deduce that Rashi is explaining what our Mishnah could have said. Rather than האשה נקנית the Mishnah could have written האשה מתקדשת to parallel the Mishnah in Chapter 2.

7. “A Literary Reading of Kiddushin Chapter 1,” accessible at https://machonsiach.org/reading-mishna-in-high-school-kiddushin-chapter-1/.
8. My focus in class is on reading and interpreting the text of the Gemara. Rishonim in various places offer different approaches for understanding the nature of the kinyan kiddushin. To my knowledge, none of the Rishonim focus on this line of the Gemara. See the excursus at the end of this paper.
9. Aryeh Cohen, Rereading Talmud: Gender, Law and the Poetics of Sugyot (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998) 131.
10. This is as true for words as it is for sentences or paragraphs, as Aryeh Cohen describes (Rereading Talmud, 132): “That is, any unit of meaning–word, sentence, story, etc. – ‘means’ only within a certain frame. Within a different frame that very same unit ‘means’ something else.” It is impossible to read the word wind without knowing the surrounding words. We determine the appropriate pronunciation of the word by reading the complete sentence.
11. This series of questions draws on הרב אורי ליפשיץ אל מול הקניין: סוגיות ריש קידושין ושאלת קניין האשה Netuim 15 pp.78-84.
12. The teacher here has an opportunity and even an obligation to explain the idea of a gezeirah shavah.
13. Rashi is crucial for student’s understanding of the Gemara. לאו הכי קא בעי לה אלא לקמן והכא האי מתרץ קאמר לה לכולא מילתא. The Gemara is not actually asking for the source of קידושי כסף at this point. The Gemara explores the source for kinyan kesef later on daf 3b. Here Rashi says the Gemara raises the question as a rhetorical device. The question and the gezerah shavah are both part of the Gemara’s answer. This is an important nuance that is difficult to explain to high school students.
14. ספרי דברים כד:א. כי יקח איש אשה . מלמד שהאשה נקנית בכסף. שהיה בדין – ומה אמה העבריה שאין נקנית בבעילה נקנית בכסף; אשה שנקנית בבעילה אינו דין שתהא נקנית בכסף! יבמה תוכיח שנקנית בבעילה ואינה נקנית בכסף; אף אתה אל תתמה על האשה שאע”פ שנקנית בבעילה לא תהא נקנית בכסף! ת”ל כי יקח איש אשה מלמד שהאשה נקנית בכסף.
15. Tosafot 2a s.v., וכתיב. Aryeh Cohen Rereading Talmud, 161, points out that the questions of Tosafot often point to the logical cracks in the sugya. Their questions, independent of the answers they provide, demand our attention. One can pursue different paths to answer those questions–Tosafot generally attempt to resolve the problem by proposing unifying answers to those questions. However, a more literary read of the sugya might not seek to answer the question; rather, letting the question stand serves as a sign of a tension point or an inflection in the sugya. The question serves as a marker of something that demands our attention and likely points to a layered moment in the sugya.
16. Tosafot s.v. בכסף מנלן.
17. Rabbeinu Tam can be found in ספר הישר חלק החידושים סימן קמב.
18. In this thinking, biah is a form of possession. This is also the implication of the noun ba’al and its verb form (buh’al) which suggests ownership.
19. It is worth noting that this is a strikingly Zionist reading of the Gemara.
20. Perhaps the sugya of מתנה על מנת להחזיר on 6b should itself be read against the backdrop of these assumptions.
21. “A Brief History of Marriage.”
22. See e.g, the similar idea in Hebrew at Avoda Zara 58b לשון תורה לעצמה לשון חכמים לעצמו and elsewhere. Thank you to Shlomo Zuckier for the reference.
23. Lakoff, George and Johnson, Mark, Metaphors We Live By (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003).
24. Rabbi Shimon Gershon Rosenberg (Shagar), Betorato Yehegeh (Alon Shevut: Mekhon Kitve ha-Rav Shagar, 2008) 238-239, following Neubauer’s 1920 dissertation, published as The History of Marriage Laws in Bible and Talmud (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1999) [Hebrew]. See also Adiel Schremer, Zachar u’Nekeiva B’ra’am (Jerusalem: Mercav Zalman Shazar, 2003).
25. “A Brief History of Marriage.”
26. Some who read this sugya attempt to shrink the significance of the kinyan concept without resorting to the historical perspective by interpreting the financial exchange as simply symbolic and therefore different from other financial transactions. See the Excursus at the end of the paper.
27. Technically, this must be with the requisite intent for marriage.
28. Rav Yisrael Gustmann קונטרסי שיעורים מסכת קידושין p. 5.
29. Ibid.
30. More precisely, Rav Gustmann’s categories are androcentric. The man performs the kinyan to obtain the wife while the singular commitment is from the woman to the man. My formulation follows Yehuda Brandes’ reading–or, perhaps, updating–of Rav Gustmann’s categories. Yehudah Brandes, “Form and Content in the Kidushin Ceremony,” Akdamot Vol. 6, (January 1999): 41-47.
31. Eva Illouz, Consuming the Romantic Utopia, (University of California Press: Berkeley, 1997).
32. Stephanie Coontz, Marriage, A History: How Love Conquered Marriage, (Penguin Books: New York, 2006).
33. Sifra, Kedoshim, parshah 1
34. “Literary Reading.”
35. See Kiddushin 7a where Rava asks whether a man can betroth half of a woman (חצייך מקודשת לי) and the subsequent exchange between Mar Zutra and Ravina as they explore the degree of similarity and difference between consecrating an animal and consecrating a marriage. The Gemara rejects the comparison between being מקדיש an animal and being מקדש a woman stating מי דמי? התם בהמה הכא דעת אחרת are they comparable? There we are discussing an animal; here we are referring to an independent mind.
36. Kiddushin 2b s.v. דאסר לה
37. ומיהו: אם היה אומר “טלית זו מקודש לי” אין נראה שיועיל דגבי אשה במה דמתיחדת להיות לו היא נאסרת לכל אבל בככר וטלית לא שייך למימר הכי.Although consider ארץ ישראל מקודשת מכל הארצות (Keilim 1:6) in light of Tosafot’s suggestion. I thank Shlomo Zuckier for this point.
38. For a concise summary of the idea of the kinyan kiddushin in Rishonim and Acharonim, see Chaim Navon, “The ‘Acquisition’ Effected Through Kiddushin,” Torat Har Etzion, December 2014, https://www.etzion.org.il/he/talmud/seder-nashim/massekhet-kiddushin/%E2%80%9Cacquisition%E2%80%9D-effected-through-kiddushin.