Reading Mishnah in High School: Kiddushin Chapter 1

Reading Mishnah in High School: Kiddushin Chapter 1 ¹ I thank my colleagues who participate in the Machon Siach initiative, “Making Sense: A Gemara Project” under the leadership of Rabbi Shmuel Hain and Rabbanit Lisa Schlaff. Your insights and comments enrich my understanding. Your love of teaching, commitment to Talmud Torah, and seriousness of purpose create a rich environment of shared growth and friendship.

In our contemporary yeshiva high school TSBP classroom, we focus most of our attention on Gemara, relegating the study of Mishnah to the pretext for engaging the sugya.² This paper draws on the critical work of Menachem Katz, Avraham Walfish, Avraham Weiss and Noam Zohar. Specifically, see Menachem Katz, “How is the Land Acquired? One Who Does a Mitzvah – A Literary analysis of the End of Masechet Hakinyamin in the Mishnah” Darkhei Aggadah 9 (2006): 143-156; Avraham Walfish, “Literary phenomena in the Mishnah and their editorial and conceptual significance” (MA thesis, Hebrew University, 1994) [Hebrew]; Avraham Walfish, “Unification of Halakha and Legend: A Study of the Methods of Editing the Tosefta,” in Higayon L’Yona: New Aspects of the Study of Midrash, Aggadah and Piyut in Honor of Professor Yona Fraenkel, ed. Joshua Levinson, Jacob Elbaum and Galit Hasan-Rokem (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2006) [Hebrew]; Avraham Walfish, “Research on the Redaction of the First Chapter of Kiddushin – From Where and To Where?,” Netuim 15 (April 2008): 43-77 [Hebrew]; Noam Zohar, “The Difference Between Man and Woman: Editing and Values in Kiddushin, Chapter 1,” Et Laasot 1 (Summer 1988): 103-112 [Hebrew]; Noam Zohar, “Women, Men and Religious Status: Deciphering a Chapter in Mishnah”, in W.S. Green (ed.), Approaches to Ancient Judaism V, 1993, pp. 33-54; Noam Zohar, “The Literary Creativity of Chazal”, (Magnes Press: Jerusalem, 2007) [Hebrew].
Rarely do we learn Mishnah alone. Different explanations for this pedagogical approach abound. Some find it difficult to make Mishnah interesting. For others, the lack of classroom time necessitates difficult choices. Over recent decades, the field of research on the literary structure of the Mishnah has flourished, highlighting the meaning-making that is possible through such analysis. Learning Mishnah with high school students can be a valuable and enriching exercise, even if just on occasion. For the high school teacher, a key starting point is to identify a perek that lends itself to such analysis. In these cases, students will be able to identify elements of the structure on their own. Furthermore, scholars have likely produced analyses of these perakim using the available tools. This allows the high school teacher to draw on available scholarship in a manner that is appropriate for high school students.

I teach Masekhet Kiddushin to tenth graders. We ask students to prepare some Mishnayot in the summer prior to the beginning of the new school year. The first perek of Kiddushin is unique in its structure and offers an excellent opportunity to exemplify the intentional organization of the Mishnah.³ For the reader’s reference, the text of the first perek of Mishnah Kiddushin is provided as an appendix to this paper.

When students come to class on the first day, I ask them to read the full perek in chavruta, divide the perek according to theme, and provide a title for each section. I expect some disagreement regarding the possible ways to divide the perek but anticipate that, overall, when students read the perek, they will split it into two parts and identify two distinct themes with relative ease. Although not everyone will arrive at precisely the same division and certainly not the same titles, the perek will be accessible to them; they will be able to engage the text and discuss the possible dividing points. Students can easily identify that there is a structure to the perek. They can independently sense that “something’s going on” in this perek, although it will be more challenging to determine what the structure intended to communicate.

Identifying the Basic Structure of the Perek
The first half of the perek is focused on kinyanim, methods of taking and relinquishing ownership over a range of objects. The second half of the perek focuses on mitzvah, as evidenced by the word mitzvah or mitzvot appearing eight times in the second part of the perek. It is less clear where the first half ends and the second half begins, but I would expect most student to divide the perek as follows:

משניות א-ו     קנינים
משניות ז-י     מצוות

Some students might dispute this division, however, based on the language of the Mishnah. In the first half of the perek, the Mishnayot take the form of “y נקנה ב x;” in the second half all but one begin with the word כל as in כל מצות or כל העושה. This nuanced language suggests that the sixth Mishnah might belong to the second half of the perek. Despite that uncertain detail, though, the class can, in a short time, internalize the basic structure of the perek, which aids in recalling its content. Students also recognize how the repeated use of keywords can lend structure to an entire unit, something that is familiar from the study of Tanakh but will be new to most regarding their study of Mishnah. Nonetheless, questions arise.

The Questions
When we discover the structure of the chapter, we see the intention with which the chapter was organized. Students often feel that Chazal favored random connections and free associations. Finding order in the assumed randomness is illuminating. The clarity of this structure then invites us to decipher its meaning: the reader can begin to consider what Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi might have had in mind when organizing this perek. Considered this way, some questions quickly come to the fore.

1. Students will certainly notice that marriage is the first in a series of cases that includes slaves and animals. The associations are disturbing. How do we explain the appearance of marriage on a list with slaves, animals, and property?
2. Furthermore, these cases are off topic. Why would all of these cases appear in the chapter that opens Masekhet Kiddushin, which is specifically dedicated to the laws of betrothal? If we peruse the perek with this question in mind, we discover that the first half of the first Mishnah is the only part of the entire first chapter of Masekhet Kiddushin that actually deals with marriage! This is surprising and demands an explanation.
3. Is it significant that both halves of the chapter highlight differences between men and women?
4. Finally, the two themes of the chapter don’t seem connected to each other. The first half focuses on transactions; the second half focuses on mitzvot. What is accomplished or conveyed by bringing these two themes together?

In reading the perek, the average group of high school students will raise these questions, the same questions that contemporary Talmud scholars raise. Perhaps more importantly, in looking ahead to the opening sugya of the Gemara, we realize that these questions are an excellent prelude to the questions raised in the savoraic sugya that introduces Masekhet Kiddushin. For example, the Gemara asks why the Mishnah uses the language of kinyan in the first perek but uses the language of kiddushin to begin the second perek. The Gemara then questions why the first Mishnah focuses on the woman (האשה) while the second perek begins with האיש. Reading the first perek as a freestanding text, we intuit that kinyan is the operative word in the context of the other Mishnayot. The first word/s of each of these Mishnayot focus our attention on the “object” that is being acquired. The answers to these questions are obvious in the context of the perek. The Gemara must realize this and is intentionally guiding us in a different direction.

Although the questions of the Gemara and the academic scholars are different, they complement each other, both deriving from a careful analysis of these Mishnayot; while our questions grow from a close reading of the first chapter, the baal hasugya is raising similar questions by comparing the opening of the first perek with the opening of the second. Why does marriage play such a minor role in the opening perek of the masekhet dedicated to the topic? Why does the opening of the second perek communicate such a different sense than the first?

Gilgul/Association
Classical commentaries note the disjunction of Mishnah 1:7, which seems to veer into the new topic of mitzvot – those upon the father for his son, those upon children for parents, time generated mitzvot and non-time generated mitzvot, and so on. Ritva offers the following explanation:⁴ Ritva, Kiddushin 29a.

והא דקתני לה רבי להא מתני’ הכא מסתבר לי משום דבמצות המוטלות על האב לעשות לבנו דקתני רישא חדא מינייהו להשיאו אשה כדמפרש במתניתא ואיידי דתנא הא תנא אידך

As to why Rebbi cited these Mishnayot here: It seems to me that the Mishnah first teaches about marriage, because it will teach the mitzvot assigned to a father that relate to his son, one of which is the requirement for a father to marry off his son, as explained in the Mishnah. Once the Mishnah was teaching one, it teaches the other.

According to Ritva, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in editing the Mishnah placed Mishnah 1:7 here in Kiddushin because one of the obligations upon the father for his son is to find him a spouse. We open with the laws of betrothal, and this Mishnah points us in the direction of how that marriage comes to be: fathers marry off their sons. In turn, marriage leads to the obligations that parents assume toward their children. The Ritva concludes with the phrase “איידי דתנא הא תנא אידך,” once they listed one category of mitzvah, they listed others.

The answer is lacking in two respects. First, Ritva attempts to explain the connection between Mishnah 1:1 and Mishnah 1:7. But uncertainties remain regarding the placement of all of the Mishnayot in between as well as the question of the relationship of themes in the chapter. The perek and masekhet are focused on kiddushin, and yet, aside from the opening lines, a full quarter of the masekhet is focused on cases related to other topics. According to Ritva, are the other cases intentionally placed for purposes of association, perhaps to ease the process of memorization? Or is the association less intentional and more stream of consciousness? Second, according to this interpretation, עיקר חסר מן הספר; the suggested connection between Mishnah 1:1 and 1:7 regarding the father’s obligation to marry off his son is absent from the Mishnah. The specific examples of obligations upon the father for his son are enumerated only in the Tosefta!

Meiri has a different suggestion using the same strategy, which he refers to as gilgul, literally “rolling.” Meiri suggests that the mention of topic A naturally “rolled” us to topic B, a form of association⁵ Meiri, Kiddushin 2a. :

שעל ידי מצות קדושין שהיא משתלשלת למצות פריה ורביה שאין הנשים חייבות בה בא לבאר המצות שהנשים חייבות בהן ואותן שהן פטורות מהן…זהו יסוד הפרק דרך כלל אלא שיתגלגלו בו דברים שלא מן הכונה כמו שהקדמנו.

Because the mitzvah of kiddushin brings about the mitzvah of procreation, which women are not obligated in, the Mishnah comes to explain which mitzvot women are obligated in and which they are exempt from. This is the general fundamental principle of the perek, that it associates matters that are not the intent of the perek, as we explained earlier.

Meiri suggests that the first Mishnah leads to the seventh as marriage leads to procreation. Since procreation is a (the) purpose of marriage, the Mishnah enumerates that women are not obligated in that mitzvah in contrast to men. This, in turn, leads to more details regarding the different obligations of men and women. Meiri explains that this type of gilgul brings along “דברים שלא מן הכונה,” matters that do not reflect the intent of the perek.

Although Ritva and Meiri disagree regarding the details of the connection between the two halves of the perek, they apply the same interpretive strategy. While both interpretations establish a point of connection between the segments, neither interpretation sees it as necessary to explain the thematic connection between kinyanim and mitzvot, which would better address the contents of the entire perek. In contrast, the Penei Yehoshua suggests the following explanation for the content of the perek:

ועוד נראה דרבינו הקדוש לאחר שסידר כל קנינין שבעולם במה נקנין ושיש חילוק בכמה דברים בין קניין האיש לקניני האשה כגון האי דריש מכילתין ובין עבד לאמה וכל זה בקניני העולם הזה חזר לפרש קנין העולם האמיתי דלעולם הבא שאינו קנה בשום דבר מהקנינים הקודמין שקונין קניני העה”ז אלא בשכר קיום המצות כדאיתא במשנה דסוף פרקין כל העושה מצוה אחת מטיבין לו ונוחל הארץ והיינו עוה”ב.⁶ P’enei Yehoshua, Kiddushin 29a.

And it also appears that Rabbeinu HaKadosh, after he organized the process for all kinyanim in the world, and discussed the distinctions related to the acquisitions of men and the acquisitions of women such as these at the start of the Masekhet and the difference between a slave and maidservant, which are all acquisitions relating to this world, he went back to explain acquisitions of the world of truth that is the Olam Haba, which is not acquired like the acquisitions of earthly things. Rather it is acquired by reward from fulfilling mitzvot, as explained in the end of the perek, “Anyone who performs one mitzvah has goodness bestowed upon him, his life is lengthened, and he inherits the land,” and this refers to Olam Haba.

Penei Yehoshua proposes that, on the heels of halakhic details of the range of transactions beginning with marriage and divorce and concluding with establishing ownership over real estate and chattel, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi sought to direct the reader’s attention to what is truly important in life: the performance of mitzvot in the service of God, concluding the perek with the true legacy, the reward in the world to come. Note that rather than find a single point of connection, Penei Yehoshua proposes a relationship between both halves of the perek – including all of its content – in his explanation. This explanation resonates with students because it accounts for the content of each half of the perek and, through that, communicates a value that shapes how a Jewish person should prioritize acquisitions, behaviors and values.

Learning from the History of the Text
Historians of the Mishnah use some of the “student questions” that we raised earlier in the paper as evidence for the claim that historical strata exist within the Mishnah itself. While in the traditional beit midrash, we distinguish between the time period of the Mishnah and that of the Gemara, it is less common to distinguish historical layers within the mishnaic text itself. And yet, the Mishnah itself refers, at times, to Mishnah Rishonah and Mishnah Acharonah, acknowledging on some level that the Mishnah has a history. Scholars of the Mishnah use source criticism as a matter of course to uncover the earlier strands within the larger Mishnah. Attempting to discover the history of our text, Yaakov Nachum Epstein suggests that the first chapter of Kiddushin is one of the oldest chapters in Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s Mishnah, a “mini-masekhet” of its own. Its first half (Mishnayot 1-6) was one chapter, which he named פרק קנינים, the chapter on transactions; he named the second half (Mishnayot 7-10) פרק חיובים, the chapter on obligations⁷ Jacob Nahum Epstein, Introductions to Tannaitic Literature (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1957), p. 52 [Hebrew].

פרק ראשון של קידושין הוא מסכת לעצמה: פרק קניינים (של אשה עבד נכסים חילופין) וחיובים (של אנשים ונשים ארץ וחו”ל) עם סיום אגדי (מ”י). כרגיל בסוף מסכות.

The first chapter of Kiddushin constitutes its own tractate: the tractate of acquisitions (of a women, slave, property, and exchanges) and obligations (of men and women, in Israel and in the diaspora) with an aggadic conclusion, as is common at the end of masekhtot.

I don’t focus on the history of the text with our high school students; I don’t think that they need to discover the core or the original strands of tannaitic statements from which the Mishnah subsequently developed. I also do not seek to develop their capacity for the philological/historical deconstruction of the Mishnah as a skill of its own. However, I see enormous benefit for myself as a teacher to have a sense of the history of the text. When I see that the text has a history, I am better situated to uncover the interpretive shifts and the ideas that motivated or accompanied those changes. Philology and the history of the text are, largely, not themselves necessary for the high school student. But they do strengthen the teacher’s capacity to decipher and then teach the underlying reasoning of these texts. The academic historical analyses shed light on the text that we have in our hands today in a way that helps me better understand it and bring elements of that analysis to the classroom. When scholars “put the Mishnah back together” after taking the historical segments apart, they help us see the literary structure of the perek. When we identify the building blocks of the perek, we can have a clearer sense of how the perek was constructed. We are better positioned to consider what Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi might  have had in mind when compiling the perek in this way.

Learning from parallel texts (Intertextuality)
Until now, we have shown how the work of Avraham Walfish, Menachem Katz, Noam Zohar, and others, in uncovering the history of the text, can help teachers enhance students’ understanding of the first chapter of Kiddushin and the dynamism hidden within the text. Students can appreciate the intention with which the Mishnah was edited and work to uncover the possible meanings that the editing intended to communicate. In turn, this work meaningfully sets up the exploration of the opening sugya of Kiddushin that can seem strange on its first read but, with this background, can make sense to our students.

Intertextuality is one of the tools that scholars use to understand the history of the text. By comparing the way the same text appears in different places, the reader can highlight small differences that help uncover how the text has changed over time. Here are two examples that Avraham Walfish uses towards this goal⁸Walfish, “Research”, p. 47..

משנה א:ו
כל הנעשה דמים באחר כיון שזכה זה נתחיב זה בחליפיו. כיצד. החליף שור בפרה או חמור בשור כיון שזכה זה נתחיב זה בחליפיו. רשות הגבוה בכסף ורשות ההדיוט בחזקה. אמירתו לגבוה כמסירתו להדיוט
With regard to all items used as monetary value for another item, once one party acquires the item he is receiving, the other is obligated with regard to the item being exchanged for it. How so? If one exchanges an ox for a cow, or a donkey for an ox, once this party acquires the animal that he is receiving, the other party is obligated with regard to the item being exchanged for it. The authority of the Temple affects acquisition through money. And the authority, i.e., the mode of acquisition, of a commoner [hedyot] is by possession. One’s declaration to the Most High (when one consecrates an item through speech) is equivalent to transferring an item to a common person.

תוספתא א:ו-ז
החליף עמו קרקעות בקרקעות מיטלטלין במטלטלין קרקעות במטלטלין מטלטלין
החליף עמו קרקעות בקרקעות מיטלטלין במטלטלין קרקעות במטלטלין מטלטלין בקרקעות כיון שזכה זה נתחייב בחלפיו. רשות גבוה בכסף כיצד גזבר שנתן מעות הקדש במטלטלין קנה הקדש בכל מקום שהוא אבל בהדיוט לא קנה עד שעה שימשוך. אמירתו לגבוה כמסירתו להדיוט
One can exchange land for land, moveables for moveables, land for moveables, moveables for land—when one party takes ownership, the other one becomes liable for its exchange.
The authority of the Temple affects acquisition through money. How so? If the treasurer gave coins for hekdesh moveable property, he acquires the hekdesh wherever he is; but a layperson doesn’t acquire [it] until the moment he draws [it]. One’s declaration to the Most High (when one consecrates an item through speech) is equivalent to transferring an item to a common person.

The Mishnah and the Tosefta essentially quote the same halakha regarding the barter of objects. Focusing only on the opening word of the Mishnah we see that it begins with the word כל while the Tosefta does not. Noting this distinction if we gloss the perek in its entirety, this small emendation is significant for the structure of the perek. The second half of the perek (Mishnayot 7-10) comprise מסכת החיובים. The key words in the unit are כל and מצוה or מצוות. Mishnah 1:6 also begins with the word כל although its content is related to the first half of the perek; it focuses on transactions related to the Mikdash. Its content relates to מסכת הקנינים while its style is of מסכת החיובים. Walfish calls this a משנת מעבר a Mishnah that bridges between two collections of Mishnayot⁹Walfish, “Research”, pp. 49-50.. This small word change reinforces the two-part structure of the perek. While we still need to explain the meaning of this structure, we are able to identify that the structure exists.

This significance of the word כל for the structure of the chapter is further reinforced at the conclusion. Once again Walfish compares the language of the Mishnah and Tosefta:

משנה א:י
כל העושה מצוה אחת מטיבין לו ומאריכין לו ימיו ונוחל את הארץ.
Anyone who performs one mitzvah has goodness bestowed upon him, his life is lengthened, and he inherits the land.

תוספתא א:יא
העושה מצוה אחת מטיבין לו ומאריכין [לו] את ימיו ונוחל את הארץ
One who performs one mitzvah has goodness bestowed upon him, his life is lengthened and he inherits land.

The use of the word כל in this last Mishnah (in contrast to the Tosefta where the word does not appear) brings the total to a neat ten times that the word is used in Mishnayot 6-10. Through this subtle mechanism, we are able to conclude that the first half of the perek פרק הקנינים extends from Mishnayot 1-5; the second half of the perek פרק החיובים extends from Mishnayot 7-10. Mishnah 1:6 serves as the bridge between the two parts. Significantly, it focuses on transactions related to hekdesh, on the one hand relating to the world of transactions and on the other relating to the world of mitzvot.¹⁰ Menachem Katz accepting Epstein’s assertion that פרק הקנינים is an early collection of Mishnayot argues that a number of statements in the second part of the perek are attributable to the much later רבי שמעון – the last Mishnah is the conclusion to מסכת הקנינים as well as מסכת החיובים by emphasizing that the things that we obtain are only a means to something deeper.

Learning from the internal pattern of the text
So far, we have used structural analysis and intertextuality to help us understand the perek. Next through a close reading of פרק הקנינים we can identify an intended pattern in the order of the Mishnayot¹¹ Following Zohar, “Literary Creativity,” 18-21.. Listing the cases in order of appearance, we find:

אשה יבמה עבד עברי אמה עבריה עבד כנעני בהמה גסה בהמה דקה קרקע מטלטלין

After identifying the order we attempt to interpret the intention of that order. Working backwards chattel or movable objects are most completely in the possession of the owner. Objects are not living beings and they have no independent will or agency. Real estate is also not living but it does have an “independent” aspect in that the owner is not able to move the property from one place to another. Although land cannot resist the will of its owner the owner is limited in when and how he can express ownership over the property. Animals can be owned but as living beings they exhibit a will of their own and a measure of independence from the owner. As we continue through the list we see that פרק הקנינים lists the cases from minimal to maximal degrees of control of the owner/husband. This idea is reflected in the additional second part of Mishnayot 1:1-3 which includes וקונה את עצמו/ה how the person is able to become detached from the relationship which is not relevant to subjects of the remainder of Mishnayot in the perek.

While we can identify the intended order of the segment understanding the intention of or drawing meaning from that order is a separate exercise. Before taking that step we will focus on the internal structure of the second part of the chapter פרק החיובים.

This section can be presented as follows:

1:7–מצות הבן על האב מצות האב על הבן¹² The terms בן על האב and אב על הבן are difficult to parse. The Mishnah text in the Bavli understands the term בן על האב as referring to mitzvot for the son that are upon the father i.e the obligations of the father to the son; מצוות האב על הבן are the obligations on behalf of the parent that fall upon the child. The Mishnah in our Yerushalmi text reverses the terms.
1:8–מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא
1:9–מצוות המקדש¹³ Walfish and Zohar see this Mishnah as a bridge as noted above. It’s style does not conform to the others although the word נוהגות in contrast to חייב and פטור connects Mishnah 1:8 to Mishnah 1:9 which uses נוהגת and אינה נוהגת.
1:10–מצוה התלויה בארץ מצוה שאינה תלויה בארץ
1:11–כל העושה מצוה אחת כל שאינו עושה מצוה אחת

Three of the five Mishnayot describe differences between men and women in mitzvah obligation. The ninth Mishnah veers from that distinction to note a different type of distinction, between land dependent mitzvot and non-land dependent mitzvot. The chapter concludes, as is fairly common, with aggadic statements about the importance of mitzvah performance generally.

Some questions on the content of the segment:
1 The Mishnah included exceptions regarding מצוות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא. It could have similarly included exceptions to the מצוות עשה שהזמן גרמא rule but it did not. Why?
2 The segment began as a description of the differences in obligation between men and women, more relevant to the subject of our masekhet, and then expanded to differences in obligations more broadly defined, including the difference between living in the land of Israel and outside of it. Once broadened, however, the perek could have included differences between Kohanim and Levi’im or able-bodied people and people with disabilities. Why did Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi include just this one expansion?

To the second question, Walfish suggests that Mishnayot 1:9-10 should be paired, as both focus on the land of Israel while Mishnayot 1:7-8 are paired in discussing the obligations of men and women.¹⁴ Walfish, “Research”, p. 58.

Noam Zohar takes a different approach. He suggests that the theme that binds the entire half is that of kedushah: mitzvah, Mikdash, land of Israel. The last Mishnayot focus on the sanctified land, the prior Mishnah to the sanctified place, that which takes place in the Mikdash. This leads him to the Mishnayot in Horayot (3:7-8) that describe the prioritizations of saving certain lives before others. The Mishnah’s guiding principle is rooted in mitzvah obligation. Those who are obligated in more mitzvot are seen as more sanctified than those with fewer obligations.¹⁵Zohar, “Literary Creativity”, p. 26. As Rambam writes in his commentary to the Mishnah (Horayot 3:7):

האיש קודם לאשה וכו’: כבר ידעת שהמצות כולם חייבין בהן הזכרים והנקבות בקצתם כמו שנתבאר בקידושין. והוא מקודש ממנה ולפיכך קודם להחיות.
You already know that men are responsible to fulfill all the commandments and women are responsible only for some of them, as explained previously in Kiddushin. He is more holy than her and therefore takes precedence in life and death matters.

For Zohar then the theme of פרק החיובים (he would prefer פרק המצוות) is the levels of sanctity that comes with greater mitzvah obligation.

Drawing meaning from the structure
Having identified the two basic parts of the first perek of Kiddushin through an analysis of the structure, we can see the intentionality with which the perek was compiled. We can now ask: what meaning or idea does the structure convey? Why are these two themes placed side by side as the opening perek of this masekhet?

1. Penei Yehoshua cited above explained that the two themes are placed in the same chapter to contrast one with the other. While it is natural for a person to prioritize one’s kinyanim – marriage, home, possessions – we should always remember that it is our obligations to God through the fulfillment of His mitzvot that are paramount.

2. Avraham Walfish sees the two themes of kinyan and mitzvah as complementary, delivering a unified message. The marriage of the first Mishnah leads to the building of family and the assumption of the obligations that come with family, as described in Mishnah 1:7. This will lead to the nachalah, the land that is described in Mishnah 1:9 and ultimate nachalah that is described in Mishnah 1:10. He suggests that the perek is expressing the verse in Ruth (4:5):

וַיֹּאמֶר בֹּעַז בְּיוֹם קְנוֹתְךָ הַשָּׂדֶה מִיַּד נעֳמִי וּמֵאֵת רוּת הַמּוֹאֲבִיָּה אֵשֶׁת־הַמֵּת (קניתי) [קָנִיתָ] לְהָקִים שֵׁם־הַמֵּת עַל נַחֲלָתוֹ
Boaz said, “On the day you buy the field from Naomi and from Rut the Moabite, you have bought the wife of the dead, to establish the name of the deceased on his inheritance.

This verse uses the word kinyan for marriage (yibum, in this instance). The kinyan here is more than transactional. For Boaz and Rut, this is a redemptive act, one that changes the trajectory of their lives. Chapter 1 of Mishnah Kiddushin teaches that through marriage, the couple embarks on a lifelong journey that includes the building of family, and the establishment of an estate and a legacy through achievements, acquisitions, mitzvot and Mikdash¹⁶ Walfish, “Research”, pp. 59-60. .

3. For Zohar, the first half of the chapter demonstrates the different levels of subjection that exists in our lives. Starting from the end, as we did earlier, possessions are fully subject to the whims of the owner; property less so, and so on. The perek begins with marriage, which, although life affirming and positive, is still an imbalanced relationship in which the man has more leverage than the woman. The explanation for this is shown in the second half of the perek which describes the differences in levels of obligation between men women Israel and Diaspora. The different mitzvah obligations of men and women reflect the imbalance power dynamic between the husband and wife. The last Mishnah (כָּל הָעוֹשֶׂה מִצְוָה אַחַת מְטִיבִין לוֹ וּמַאֲרִיכִין לוֹ יָמָיו וְנוֹחֵל אֶת הָאָרֶץ) aggadic closure,  stands as a touch of nechamah, an acknowledgement that, despite the disparities in our imperfect world, there is an ultimate nachalah that recognizes the significance of each mitzvah that any person performs. While, in our current world, men and women have different levels of mitzvah obligation and imbalance in their dynamic, this will not always be so. The verse in Hoshea (2:8) states:

והיה ביום־ההוא נאם ה׳ תקראי אישי ולא־תקראי־לי עוד בעלי
“It will be on that day,” says the Lord, “that you will call Me ‘my husband,’ and no longer call Me ‘my master.’

In the end of days God will no longer be the בעל of the Jewish people but the איש of the Jewish people equal partners. That according to Zohar is the message of our chapter of Mishna regarding marriage between a man and a woman.

4. Yakov Nagen extends Walfish’s idea. The two halves of the perek complement each other. The kinyanim in the first half bring about the obligations of the second half. The lives that we lead, the relationships that we establish, and the possessions that we acquire should be sanctified through mitzvot. Mishnayot 1:1 and 1:7 focus on women and marriage. Women have fewer mitzvah obligations than men. Marriage (1:1) generates family obligations (1:7), again connecting those same mishnayot; Mishnah 3 focuses on animals which are sanctified through Mikdash service (1:8). The acquisition of land (1:5) requires fulfillment of land-based mitzvot (1:9). and the hekdesh of Mishnah 1:6 connects to Mishnah 1:10. The first half of the perek has ten objects; the second half uses the word  כל ten times – five connected to people and five connected to the land. The symmetry conveys a message).¹⁷ Yaakov Nagen, The Soul of the Mishnah, (Jerusalem: Maggid Books, 2021), 315-320.

Conclusion
Having studied the various approaches to drawing meaning from this perek, the teacher must decide what parts to bring to the classroom. This is the act of tzimtzum that drives all lesson planning. Here, our goal as classroom teachers is distinct. Our commitment is not to historical accuracy as is the goal of the Talmud scholar. We also do not need to share the array of scholarly interpretations with our students or rely solely on classical and modern commentators of Mishnah (Bartenura and Kehati). My goal is to create a vibrant learning environment in class, to inspire students to see the wisdom of Chazal wherever possible, to help students develop the capacity to become insiders to the study of Mishnah and Gemara, and to take home a message from these texts that they will remember and that they can carry with them to another sugya or a conversation with their peers. My final “takeaway” (“what do we need to know?”) focuses on the Penei Yehoshua, Avraham Walfish and Yaakov Nagen cited above.¹⁸ A pedagogical note: I plan this as a two-class unit. One class is dedicated to chavruta study with appropriate introduction and closure to the chavruta work. For the second class, students bring the results of their guided chavruta. We use that as the basis for a discussion about the structure as described above, hopefully hitting on many of those points through the discussion.

Literary analysis of the works of Chazal is a burgeoning field. As educators, we have much to gain from exploring these works and developing the skills to analyze whole perakim and sugyot from a literary perspective. This work is not at all foreign to the Rishonim. Many of the questions of commentaries derive from just these perspectives. Drawing on the work of scholars who use this approach can be particularly helpful in studying chapters of the Mishnah. High school students have the skills and capacity to learn the perek of Mishnah, raise many of these same questions, and even suggest approaches of their own, which often connect to those of the commentaries and scholarship. This type of learning provides students with the opportunity to experience the wisdom of Chazal through their own independent learning and classroom discussion. In this instance, it also serves as ideal preparation for tackling the opening sugya of Masekhet Kiddushin.

משנה קידושין פרק א

א. הָאִשָּׁה נִקְנֵית בְּשָׁלשׁ דְּרָכִים וְקוֹנָה אֶת עַצְמָהּ בִּשְׁתֵּי דְרָכִים. נִקְנֵית בְּכֶסֶף בִּשְׁטָר וּבְבִיאָה. בְּכֶסֶף בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים בְּדִינָר וּבְשָׁוֶה דִינָר. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים בִּפְרוּטָה וּבְשָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה. וְכַמָּה הִיא פְרוּטָה אֶחָד מִשְּׁמֹנָה בָאִסָּר הָאִיטַלְקִי. וְקוֹנָה אֶת עַצְמָהּ בְּגֵט וּבְמִיתַת הַבָּעַל. הַיְבָמָה נִקְנֵית בְּבִיאָה. וְקוֹנָה אֶת עַצְמָהּ בַּחֲלִיצָה וּבְמִיתַת הַיָּבָם:

ב. עֶבֶד עִבְרִי נִקְנֶה בְכֶסֶף וּבִשְׁטָר וְקוֹנֶה אֶת עַצְמוֹ בַּשָּׁנִים וּבַיּוֹבֵל וּבְגִרְעוֹן כֶּסֶף. יְתֵרָה עָלָיו אָמָה הָעִבְרִיָּה שֶׁקּוֹנָה אֶת עַצְמָהּ בְּסִימָנִין. הַנִּרְצָע נִקְנֶה בִרְצִיעָה וְקוֹנֶה אֶת עַצְמוֹ בַיּוֹבֵל וּבְמִיתַת הָאָדוֹן:

ג. עֶבֶד כְּנַעֲנִי נִקְנֶה בְכֶסֶף וּבִשְׁטָר וּבַחֲזָקָה וְקוֹנֶה אֶת עַצְמוֹ בְכֶסֶף עַל יְדֵי אֲחֵרִים וּבִשְׁטָר עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים בְּכֶסֶף עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ וּבִשְׁטָר עַל יְדֵי אֲחֵרִים וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיְּהֵא הַכֶּסֶף מִשֶּׁל אֲחֵרִים:

ד. בְּהֵמָה גַסָּה נִקְנֵית בִּמְסִירָה וְהַדַּקָּה בְּהַגְבָּהָה דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים בְּהֵמָה דַקָּה נִקְנֵית בִּמְשִׁיכָה:

ה. נְכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת נִקְנִין בְּכֶסֶף וּבִשְׁטָר וּבַחֲזָקָה. וְשֶׁאֵין לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת אֵין נִקְנִין אֶלָּא בִמְשִׁיכָה. נְכָסִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת נִקְנִין עִם נְכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת בְּכֶסֶף וּבִשְׁטָר וּבַחֲזָקָה. וְזוֹקְקִין נְכָסִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת אֶת הַנְּכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת לִשָּׁבַע עֲלֵיהֶן:

ו. כָּל הַנַּעֲשֶׂה דָמִים בְּאַחֵר כֵּיוָן שֶׁזָּכָה זֶה נִתְחַיֵּב זֶה בַחֲלִיפָיו. כֵּיצַד. הֶחֱלִיף שׁוֹר בְּפָרָה אוֹ חֲמוֹר בְּשׁוֹר כֵּיוָן שֶׁזָּכָה זֶה נִתְחַיֵּב זֶה בַחֲלִיפָיו. רְשׁוּת הַגָּבוֹהַּ בְּכֶסֶף וּרְשׁוּת הַהֶדְיוֹט בַּחֲזָקָה. אֲמִירָתוֹ לַגָּבוֹהַּ כִּמְסִירָתוֹ לַהֶדְיוֹט:

ז. כָּל מִצְוֹת הַבֵּן עַל הָאָב אֲנָשִׁים חַיָּבִין וְנָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת. וְכָל מִצְוֹת הָאָב עַל הַבֵּן אֶחָד אֲנָשִׁים וְאֶחָד נָשִׁים חַיָּבִין. וְכָל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהַזְּמָן גְּרָמָהּ אֲנָשִׁים חַיָּבִין וְנָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת. וְכָל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁלֹּא הַזְּמָן גְּרָמָהּ אֶחָד אֲנָשִׁים וְאֶחָד נָשִׁים חַיָּבִין. וְכָל מִצְוַת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה בֵּין שֶׁהַזְּמָן גְּרָמָהּ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא הַזְּמָן גְּרָמָהּ אֶחָד אֲנָשִׁים וְאֶחָד נָשִׁים חַיָּבִין חוּץ מִבַּל תַּשְׁחִית וּבַל תַּקִּיף וּבַל תִּטַּמָּא לְמֵתִים:

ח. הַסְּמִיכוֹת וְהַתְּנוּפוֹת וְהַהַגָּשׁוֹת וְהַקְּמִיצוֹת וְהַהַקְטָרוֹת וְהַמְּלִיקוֹת וְהַהַזָּאוֹת וְהַקַּבָּלוֹת נוֹהֲגִין בַּאֲנָשִׁים וְלֹא בְנָשִׁים חוּץ מִמִּנְחַת סוֹטָה וּנְזִירָה שֶׁהֵן מְנִיפוֹת:

ט. כָּל מִצְוָה שֶׁהִיא תְלוּיָה בָאָרֶץ אֵינָהּ נוֹהֶגֶת אֶלָּא בָאָרֶץ. וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ תְּלוּיָה בָאָרֶץ נוֹהֶגֶת בֵּין בָּאָרֶץ בֵּין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ חוּץ מִן הָעָרְלָה וְכִלְאָיִם. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר אַף מִן הֶחָדָשׁ:

י. כָּל הָעוֹשֶׂה מִצְוָה אַחַת מְטִיבִין לוֹ וּמַאֲרִיכִין לוֹ יָמָיו וְנוֹחֵל אֶת הָאָרֶץ. וְכָל שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה מִצְוָה אַחַת אֵין מְטִיבִין לוֹ וְאֵין מַאֲרִיכִין לוֹ יָמָיו וְאֵינוֹ נוֹחֵל אֶת הָאָרֶץ. כָּל שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ בַמִּקְרָא וּבַמִּשְׁנָה וּבְדֶרֶךְ אֶרֶץ לֹא בִמְהֵרָה הוּא חוֹטֵא שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (קהלת ד) וְהַחוּט הַמְשֻׁלָּשׁ לֹא בִמְהֵרָה יִנָּתֵק. וְכָל שֶׁאֵינוֹ לֹא בַמִּקְרָא וְלֹא בַמִּשְׁנָה וְלֹא בְדֶרֶךְ אֶרֶץ אֵינוֹ מִן הַיִּשּׁוּב:

• 1
  I thank my colleagues who participate in the Machon Siach initiative, “Making Sense: A Gemara Project” under the leadership of Rabbi Shmuel Hain and Rabbanit Lisa Schlaff. Your insights and comments enrich my understanding. Your love of teaching, commitment to Talmud Torah, and seriousness of purpose create a rich environment of shared growth and friendship.
  
• 2
  This paper draws on the critical work of Menachem Katz, Avraham Walfish, Avraham Weiss and Noam Zohar. Specifically, see Menachem Katz, “How is the Land Acquired? One Who Does a Mitzvah – A Literary analysis of the End of Masechet Hakinyamin in the Mishnah” Darkhei Aggadah 9 (2006): 143-156; Avraham Walfish, “Literary phenomena in the Mishnah and their editorial and conceptual significance” (MA thesis, Hebrew University, 1994) [Hebrew]; Avraham Walfish, “Unification of Halakha and Legend: A Study of the Methods of Editing the Tosefta,” in Higayon L’Yona: New Aspects of the Study of Midrash, Aggadah and Piyut in Honor of Professor Yona Fraenkel, ed. Joshua Levinson, Jacob Elbaum and Galit Hasan-Rokem (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2006) [Hebrew]; Avraham Walfish, “Research on the Redaction of the First Chapter of Kiddushin – From Where and To Where?,” Netuim 15 (April 2008): 43-77 [Hebrew]; Noam Zohar, “The Difference Between Man and Woman: Editing and Values in Kiddushin, Chapter 1,” Et Laasot 1 (Summer 1988): 103-112 [Hebrew]; Noam Zohar, “Women, Men and Religious Status: Deciphering a Chapter in Mishnah”, in W.S. Green (ed.), Approaches to Ancient Judaism V, 1993, pp. 33-54; Noam Zohar, “The Literary Creativity of Chazal”, (Magnes Press: Jerusalem, 2007) [Hebrew].
  
• 3
  For the reader’s reference, the text of the first perek of Mishnah Kiddushin is provided as an appendix to this paper.
• 4
  Ritva, Kiddushin 29a.
• 5
  Meiri, Kiddushin 2a.
• 6
  P’enei Yehoshua, Kiddushin 29a.
• 7
  Jacob Nahum Epstein, Introductions to Tannaitic Literature (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1957), p. 52 [Hebrew]
• 8
  Walfish, “Research”, p. 47.
• 9
  Walfish, “Research”, pp. 49-50.
• 10
  Menachem Katz accepting Epstein’s assertion that פרק הקנינים is an early collection of Mishnayot argues that a number of statements in the second part of the perek are attributable to the much later רבי שמעון – the last Mishnah is the conclusion to מסכת הקנינים as well as מסכת החיובים by emphasizing that the things that we obtain are only a means to something deeper.
• 11
  Following Zohar, “Literary Creativity,” 18-21.
• 12
  The terms בן על האב and אב על הבן are difficult to parse. The Mishnah text in the Bavli understands the term בן על האב as referring to mitzvot for the son that are upon the father i.e the obligations of the father to the son; מצוות האב על הבן are the obligations on behalf of the parent that fall upon the child. The Mishnah in our Yerushalmi text reverses the terms.
• 13
  Walfish and Zohar see this Mishnah as a bridge as noted above. It’s style does not conform to the others although the word נוהגות in contrast to חייב and פטור connects Mishnah 1:8 to Mishnah 1:9 which uses נוהגת and אינה נוהגת.
• 14
  Walfish, “Research”, p. 58.
• 15
  Zohar, “Literary Creativity”, p. 26.
• 16
  Walfish, “Research”, pp. 59-60.
• 17
  Yaakov Nagen, The Soul of the Mishnah, (Jerusalem: Maggid Books, 2021), 315-320.
• 18
  A pedagogical note: I plan this as a two-class unit. One class is dedicated to chavruta study with appropriate introduction and closure to the chavruta work. For the second class, students bring the results of their guided chavruta. We use that as the basis for a discussion about the structure as described above, hopefully hitting on many of those points through the discussion.