Commentary for Kiddushin 10:6

אמר רבא שתי תשובות בדבר חדא דשלש תנן וד' לא תנן

firstly, we learnt THREE, not 'four'; and secondly, can then huppah complete [marriage] but through [prior] kiddushin; are we then to deduce huppah, when not as a result of kiddushin, from the same when preceded by kiddushin? - Abaye answered him: As for your objection, we learnt THREE, not 'four': [only] what is explicitly stated [in Scripture] is taught, but not what not explicitly stated.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Money and deed, though deduced by exegesis, are regarded as explicit, since they are intimated in Scripture. But huppah is only inferred a minori.');">⁸</span> And as to your objection; can then huppah complete [marriage] but through [prior] kiddushin - that indeed is R'Huna's argument: if money_ which cannot complete [marriage] after money,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when betrothal (erusin) is effected by money, the marriage cannot he completed by giving money a second time.');">⁹</span>

Explore commentary for Kiddushin 10:6. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.