6

The Rambam in Hilchos Ishus 1:1 makes the following statement:

כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּתְּנָה תּוֹרָה נִצְטַוּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאִם יִרְצֶה הָאִישׁ לִשָּׂא אִשָּׁה יִקְנֶה אוֹתָהּ תְּחִלָּה בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים וְאַחַר כָּךְ תִּהְיֶה לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כב יג) "כִּי יִקַּח אִישׁ אִשָּׁה וּבָא אֵלֶיהָ":

Once the Torah was given, the Jews were commanded that if a man wants to marry a woman, he should take her first before witnesses, and afterwards she should be to him as a wife, as it says, “When a man takes a woman and comes upon her” (Devarim 22:13).

The Rambam clearly states that Kiddushin is a mitzvah (he should take her before marrying her - in the Hebrew text, the marriage is referred to as לשא, a form of נשואין, Nisuin, the second stage of marriage; therefore, this must refer to the first stage of marriage, Kiddushin).

Now read the Gemara in Moed Kattan 18b. Shmuel said that Kiddushin is permissible on Chol HaMoed, and the Gemara proposed that the fact that the earlier mishnah (Moed Kattan 8b) only forbade Nisuin, it must be that Kiddushin is permissible. The Gemara refutes this proof:

לא מיבעיא לארס דלא קעביד מצוה אלא אפילו לישא נמי דקא עביד מצוה אסור

[The Mishnah means to say:] It goes without saying that Eirusin [i.e. Kiddushin], by which he is not doing a Mitzvah, [should be forbidden,] but even Nisuin also, by which he does a Mitzvah, is forbidden.

Um...

How can the Rambam learn that Kiddushin is a Mitzvah, when the Gemara explicitly states that Kiddushin is not a Mitzvah?!

DonielF
  • 34,262
  • 4
  • 40
  • 143
  • Note that Rambam is not the only one who counts Kiddushin as a mitzvah. see, e.g., Sefer Hachinuch #552. – Alex Jul 03 '18 at 21:32
  • @Alex, he usually follows Rambam's mitzva enumeration. – msh210 Jul 03 '18 at 21:46
  • @msh210 True, but he is not quite a blind follower. For instance, in this very mitzvah he questions Rambam's ruling that the blessing must be said before the act of Kiddushin, on the grounds that we don't know that the woman will consent and it will be a beracha levatala. – Alex Jul 03 '18 at 21:49
  • 1
    @Alex I don’t think what you’re saying and what msh is saying are contradictory. The Chinuch in several places says that he’s going with the Rambam’s list but still says that he disagrees with the Rambam and doesn’t feel that it should be counted as a mitzvah, or at least a separate mitzvah. – DonielF Jul 03 '18 at 22:16
  • I also don't think we're disagreeing. I'm just clarifying. – Alex Jul 03 '18 at 22:18
  • Please note, that the use of the word Mitzvah is extremely vague throughout all of our sources - Mishnah, Talmud, Geonim, Rishonim etc. It rarely means exactly "one of the 613 Mitzvot" but simply "a good deed". Compare Rambam הלכות קרי"ש - the Mitzvah is to read קרי"ש but he says "פעמים ביום קורים קרית שמע", but a couple of sentences after he says "שמצוה להזכיר יציא"מ בלילה" - and does not count it as a stand-alone Mitzvvah. – Al Berko Jul 04 '18 at 20:05
  • @AlBerko That’s because the mitzvah to mention Yetzias Mitzraim at night is only DeRabbanan - it’s fulfilled with the third Perek of Shema, which itself is DeRabbanan. The Mitzvah DeOraisa is fulfilled by just mentioning it once a day. – DonielF Jul 04 '18 at 20:23
  • @DonielF agav, I wanted to link to the Kesef Mishnah quoted in answer #1 but its not there... yet is there for 1:2, but not 1:3... etc. What's pshat? Not even referring to Hebrew and English- strange that even just the Hebrew text is available for some of Kesef Mishnah but not others – alicht Mar 08 '19 at 05:14
  • @alicht IDK. It’s not even that the connection’s broken; if you go to the Kesef Mishnah page itself, the text is missing there, too. – DonielF Mar 08 '19 at 05:34

3 Answers3

7

Rambam's son, R. Avraham, as cited in Kesef Mishne, end of Ishus 1:1, answers that the command is to marry with kidushin and nisuin, which is why Rambam refers to even the first part as a mitzva, meaning the start of one, but doing the first part alone doesn't do a mitzva. KM implies by his wording, q.v., that the main part of the dual mitzva is the second part.

h/t R. Tz'vi Hirsh Chiyes

msh210
  • 73,729
  • 12
  • 120
  • 359
  • Still, how does he explain the Gemara? Nisuin also isn’t a mitzvah according to this understanding! – DonielF Jul 03 '18 at 21:15
  • @DonielF see the wording of the KM. He makes it sound like nisuin is the main part. I'll edit.... – msh210 Jul 03 '18 at 21:22
  • By the way, the actual teshuva of R. Avraham is in Birchas Avraham # 44. – Alex Jul 03 '18 at 21:27
  • 2
    @DonielF & msh212 When you just do Kiddushin there is no mitzvah (yet). Once you do Nissuin, it is now a mitzvah. I don't even see the need to say that Nissuin is the main part of the mitzvah - it just happens to be that Nissuin is what completes the mitzvah. – Alex Jul 03 '18 at 21:43
  • So you think he understands the Gemara to mean “Kiddushin, which isn’t [the main part of] the mitzvah, goes without saying, but even Nisuin, which is [the main part of] the mitzvah”? – DonielF Jul 03 '18 at 22:14
3

I realize that both msh210 and IsraelReader already gave answers based on this source, but I think that neither one explained it fully/properly, so I would like to attempt to answer it myself.

This question was asked to R. Avraham the son of Rambam. This was his answer:

Birchas Avraham # 44

ואותה הקושיא שהקשית על עיקר דבריו לא קשיא עליה שבמנין המצוות בתחלת הלכה אמר שהמצוה לישא אשה בכתובה וקידושין ולא אמר לקדש אשה וכן אמרינן לישא דקא עבד מצוה וזה שאמר וליקוחין אלו מצות עשה לפי שהיא תחלת מצות הנשואין וכך אמר בתחלה יקנה אותה תחלה בפני עדים ואחר כך תהיה לו לאשה שנאמר כי יקח איש אשה ובא אליה אבל קידושין בלא נישואין ודאי לא השלים המצוה עדיין ומצות פריה ורביה מצוה אחרת היא שמצות פריה ורביה כשיהיה לו בן או בת קיים המצוה ומצות הקדושין והנשואין אפילו יש לו כמה בנים וכמה בנות ויש עמו כמה נשים כל אשה שירצה לישא אותה מצוה עליו שישא אותה בקדושין ועיין בדבריו ז"ל בספר מצות יתבאר לך ההפרש שביניהם ואין בנו צורך להאריך בדבר זה

My understanding of this is as follows: Rambam holds that there is a mitzvah of marriage which is made up of two components. 1. Kiddushin 2. Nissuin. If one performs Kiddushin but never gets around to doing Nissuin, he has started the mitzvah but has not completed it, and thus he is not considered to have fulfilled the mitzvah.

Therefore, the Talmud in Moed Katan means that when one does Nissuin he is fulfilling a mitzvah (because having already done Kiddushin, he is now completing the mitzvah) but when one does Kiddushin he is not fulfilling a mitzvah (because not having done Nissuin, the mitzvah is incomplete). This explains how Rambam's view is to be reconciled with the Talmud.

As for how, R. Avraham fits this explanation into Rambam's words (or how he derives it from Rambam's words), I believe the following is correct:

There is no indication of this explanation from Sefer Hamitzvot. There Rambam lists two mitzvot, one about procreation (#212) and one about marriage (#213). It is certainly implied that these are two separate mitzvot (i.e. one can fulfill the mitzvah of marriage without procreating), but there is no indication here that the mitzvah of marriage consists of Kiddushin + Nissuin. If anything, the implication there is that Kiddushin is the entirety of the mitzvah of marriage, as that is all that is mentioned there.

However, the indication that Rambam's view is in fact that only Kiddushin + Nissuin = the mitzvah of marriage, is in Mishneh Torah. In the beginning of Hilchot Ishut Rambam lists the mitzvot that are included in this section. The first one is:

לישא אשה בכתובה וקידושין

To marry a woman, granting her the rights of the formal marriage contract (ketubah) and sanctifying the relationship through the rites of kiddushin; (Chabad.org)

R. Avraham picks up on the fact that Rambam does not say simply "לקדש אשה" which would be sufficient if Kiddushin was the entirety of the mitzvah, but instead says "לישא אשה בכתובה וקידושין" which indicates that there is an additional component, namely, Nissuin.

R. Avraham does not note this, but in Shemonah Perakim (Chapter Eight) Rambam has a similar formulation:

לפי שהאשה הזו אם לקחה בכתובה וקדושין והיא מותרת לו ונשאה לפריה ורביה הרי זו מצוה (Kafih translation, my emphasis)

R Avraham then clarifies that the mitzvah of marriage (i.e. Kiddushin + Nissuin) is distinct from the mitzvah of procreation. The mitzvah of procreation is fulfilled by having a surviving son or daughter. The mitzvah of marriage can be fulfilled even if you already have many sons, many daughters, and many wives. For any woman that you want to marry, there is a mitzvah to marry her via Kiddushin + Nissuin.

Alex
  • 49,242
  • 3
  • 120
  • 228
-1

Good question. The "Kessef Mishnah" on the Rambam (Ishus 1:3) quotes R' Avraham, the son of the Rambam, who noted that this question was posed to him.

Before we get to his answer, I note that the Rambam in Hilchos Ishus 1:1 is not the only source for this position. It is also found in "Sefer HaMitzvos" (Asei 213):

הצווי שנצטוינו לבעול בקידושין: במתן דבר ביד האישה, או בשטר, או בביאה - וזוהי מצות קידושין.

The 213th mitzvah is that we are commanded to acquire [by kiddushin1] a woman before having relations with her: either by giving her something [of sufficient value]; by giving her a document [of marriage]; or by having marital relations [for the purpose of kiddushin]. This is the mitzvah of kiddushin.

Here is the "Kessef Mishnah" in the name of R' Avraham, the son of the Rambam:

כתב הר"א בנו של רבינו, שהקשו לו על מה שכתב רבינו מצות עשה של תורה לקדש את האשה ממ"ש בפרק אלו מגלחין (מ"ק דף יח) לא מיבעיא קאמר לא מיבעיא לארס דלא עביד מצוה שאסור אלא אפילו לישא דקא עביד מצוה נמי אסור. ותירץ, שבמנין המצות בתחלת ההלכה אמר שהמצוה לישא אשה בכתובה וקידושין, ולא אמר לקדש אשה, וזה שאמר וליקוחין אלו מצות עשה, לפי שהיא תחלת מצות הנישואין, אבל אירוסין בלא נישואין ודאי לא השלים המצוה עדיין:

My understanding of his answer is as follows. Kiddushin alone is not a mitzvah (which is what the gemara in Moed Kattan is referring to). The mitzvah is to procreate (Asei 212), with a woman whom we have previously given Kiddushin to.

I conclude with a "proof" that the Rambam uses (Asei 213) to support his position:

ובפרוש אמרו על קידושין בביאה שהם דאורייתא. הנה נתבאר שמצות קידושין דאורייתא.

Our Sages (Kiddushin 9b) stated explicitly that kiddushin by means of relations is a Torah law. This statement proves that kiddushin counts as a law of the Torah.

IsraelReader
  • 4,988
  • 1
  • 12
  • 28
  • Is this different than msh’s answer, fundamentally? If not, then my question on his answer applies here as well. – DonielF Jul 03 '18 at 21:16
  • This is basically the same answer as his, but much more fleshed out. It also quotes the texts in question, and adds Rambam's words in Sefer Hamitzvos. Finally, it does address your question directly, so your question to him does not apply. – IsraelReader Jul 03 '18 at 21:24
  • 1
    If you look at the actual teshuva of R. Avraham (the Kesef Mishneh doesn't quote this part), he states explicitly that procreation is a separate mitzvah: "ומצות פריה ורביה מצוה אחרת היא" – Alex Jul 03 '18 at 21:26
  • Indeed. I referred to it in my answer (Asei 212). – IsraelReader Jul 03 '18 at 21:27
  • @IsraelReader But you wrote: Kiddushin alone is not a mitzvah (which is what the gemara in Moed Kattan is referring to). The mitzvah is to procreate (Asei 212), with a woman whom we have previously given Kiddushin to. That is not true according to R. Avraham. – Alex Jul 03 '18 at 21:28
  • Did R' Avraham have a different text of ספר המצוות? My text reads as follows: הצווי שנצטוינו לבעול בקידושין – IsraelReader Jul 03 '18 at 21:32
  • @IsraelReader Where in that text do you see anything about Peru Urevu? Peru Urevu is #212 while this is #213. – Alex Jul 03 '18 at 21:35
  • @IsraelReader My point is that you imply (if not state explicitly) that there is no mitzvah independent of procreation, whereas R. Avraham says that there is one mitzvah of Kiddushin + Nissuin (which is fulfilled even if you never procreate or even if you've already fulfilled all your obligations of procreation), and a second mitzvah of procreation. – Alex Jul 03 '18 at 21:45
  • #213 does not exist in a vacuum. The Rambam juxtaposed it following #212, the Mitzvah of Peru Urevu (=procreate). The Rambam's intent is as follows. After I just got finished telling you that you must make babies (212), don't just go over to a willing female and do it with her, rather first be "mekadesh" her (213) before having relations with her. – IsraelReader Jul 03 '18 at 21:48
  • @IsraelReader Sure, they are related. But you can fulfill the latter without the former (as per R. Avraham) which your post seems to disagree with. If that was not your intent you can edit to clarify. – Alex Jul 03 '18 at 21:51
  • "the latter without the former". Which is which? please elaborate. – IsraelReader Jul 03 '18 at 21:55
  • @IsraelReader R. Avraham writes that there are two mitzvot. One mitzvah is to procreate, which is fulfilled by procreating. (#212 in Sefer Hamitzvot.) The second one has two parts: Kiddushin and Nissuin. In order to fulfill this you need to do both Kiddushin and Nissuin. (#213 in Sefer Hamitzvot.) The point I am making is that you can fulfill #213 completely irrespective of #212. That is to say that if you get married but never have children you have fulfilled #213. Or if you already had children (fulfilled #212) you can still fulfill #213 as many times as you want by marrying additional women – Alex Jul 03 '18 at 22:09
  • "The second one has two parts: Kiddushin and Nissuin. In order to fulfill this you need to do both Kiddushin and Nissuin. (#213 in Sefer Hamitzvot.)". My Sefer Hamitzvos reads "שנצטוינו לבעול בקידושין", which I understand as making sure that you have been מקדש the woman before having relations with her. Nothing there about Nissuin. However R' Avraham ben HaRambam may have had a different reading, as is evident from his words שבמנין המצות בתחלת ההלכה אמר שהמצוה לישא אשה בכתובה וקידושין – IsraelReader Jul 03 '18 at 22:20
  • @IsraelReader R. Avraham is not claiming that Rambam says this in Sefer Hamitzvos. He derives it from what Rambam says in Mishneh Torah in the beginning of Ishut where he lists the mitzvot included in this section. There Rambam says "לישא אשה בכתובה וקידושין". R. Avraham interprets this to mean that the mitzvah consists of two parts, Kiddushin and Nissuin. (By the way, please include my name so that I get a notification that you responded.) – Alex Jul 03 '18 at 22:33
  • @Alex Thank you for enlightening me. I had not seen that line at the beginning of Hilchos Ishus. However it still remains puzzling, since the Rambam did not express it like that in Sefer Hamitzvos. The answer must be, that "Kesubah" is only DeRabanan, which is why he didn't mention it in Sefer Hamitzvos, which is dedicated to DeOraisa. – IsraelReader Jul 03 '18 at 22:40