4

In Hilchos Ishus 1:2, the Rambam writes:

לִקּוּחִין אֵלּוּ מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁל תּוֹרָה הֵם. וּבְאֶחָד מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ הָאִשָּׁה נִקְנֵית. בְּכֶסֶף. אוֹ בִּשְׁטָר. אוֹ בְּבִיאָה. בְּבִיאָה וּבִשְׁטָר מֵהַתּוֹרָה. וּבְכֶסֶף מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים.

And taking a wife as such is a positive commandment of the Torah. And a woman is acquired through three means: money, a contract, or through intercourse. Marriage through intercourse and by contract is from the Torah, and by money is from the words of the Scribes

Most Rishonim (ex: Kesef Mishnah) don't take this phrase at face value and explain why the Rambam used the phrase "divrei sofrim." As summed up in the Steinsaltz intro to Kiddushin:

They explain that the Rambam distinguishes between laws that are clearly written in the Torah (or are derived from a straightforward reading of the Torah) and those laws that are derived from some of the hermeneutic devices applied by the Sages. Halakhot derived in that manner are referred to by the Rambam as divrei soferim even though they have the same level of seriousness and severity as laws that are clearly learned from the Torah.

My question TL;DR:

Why did the the Rambam say shtar is from the Torah if (like kesef) it ALSO requires a limmud?

Namely, if shtar is not explicitly written in the Torah and its acceptability is learnt out via a hekesh ("ויצאה והיתה" Kiddushin 9b ) AND following the opinions that hekesh is considered to be a part of one of the 13 Hermeneutical principles (see "במנין המידות" in this link), why didn't the Rambam also say shtar is "divrei sofrim?"

  • 2
    Notably, as per the Rambam's own opinion in Shoresh 2 regarding what's a d'Oraisa and what's a d'Rabbanan, it would seem that Shtar and even Bi'ah (according to the conclusion of the Gemara) are Divrei Sofrim. – DonielF Apr 2 at 2:57
  • @DonielF what do you mean by Shoresh 2? – alicht Apr 2 at 3:02
  • 2
    At the beginning of Sefer HaMitzvos, the Rambam sets forth the principles by which he determines which mitzvos are Biblical and which are Rabbinic. In Shoresh 2, he explains that if it relies on the rules of derash, it doesn't count as a d'Oraisa. The Ramban argues vehemently on this point alone, concluding that the rest of the Shorashim he agrees with entirely but has no idea what the Rambam was thinking with this particular one. – DonielF Apr 2 at 3:03
  • 1
    mistake, I remembered this Rashi in BM 48a but its an other topic קאי באבל. משום דברים שבאו על כך לכלל מעשה אבל מעות לא קנו מדאורייתא ונפקא מינה לענין איסורא כגון אם קידש בו את האשה לר' יוחנן הוו קדושין דמדאוריי' קנייה ודידיה הוא לריש לקיש לא הוו קדושין: – kouty Apr 2 at 6:54
  • 2
    Note we have other Girsaot on this Halakha and it seems the Rambam changed his mind a few times trying to decide what to write – Double AA Apr 2 at 12:05
8

Rambam discusses this exact question in a responsum (1:150 in the Machon Yerushalayim edition) to R. Pinchas the Judge. He tells R. Pinchas to read his Sefer Hamitzvot where he lays out the rule that a mitzvah that is derived via one of the 13 principles of exposition is not called d'oraita unless the Sages explicitly say so. Kessef which is derived via a gezeirah shavah and is not explicitly said to be d'oraita by the Sages, is hence not considered d'oraita. Shtar, though derived via a hekesh, is explicitly stated by the Sages to be d'oraita (see the discussion in Kiddushin 9b). Thus, Rambam had no choice but to refer to kessef as divrei soferim and shtar as d'oraita even though ideally shtar would also have been referred to as divrei soferim.

Here is the key paragraph:

והתשובה על זה שודאי כך הייתי אומר שהכסף והשטר מדבריהם הואיל ומן הדין באו לולי הא דאמרינן בהדיא בענין נערה מאורסה דאמרינן הערה מאורסה דאמר רחמנא בסקילה היכי משכחת לה פירוש מדאמר קרא נערה בתולה מאורסה שמע מינה בודאי שיש מאורסה מן התורה בלא ביאה ובמה ושקלו וטרו וסוף המימרא אמר ר' נחמן ביר' יצחק משכחת לה כגון שקידשה בשטר הואיל וגמר ומוציא גומר ומכניס שמע מינה שלדברי הכל השטר גומר ומכניס ועל זה סמכתי ופסקתי שהשטר מן התורה

This responsum is cited by Ramban in his objections to Rambam's second principle of mitzvah counting, and Ramban's citation is further cited by R. Joseph Karo in his commentary to Hilchot Ishut 3:20.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .