Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Kidushin, 10

10b

QUESTION: Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah taught a Kal v'Chomer to prove that an Arusah Bas Yisrael married to a Kohen should be permitted to eat Terumah. His Kal v'Chomer asserted that since a Shifchah Kena'anis is not acquired through Bi'ah and thus cannot eat Terumah with Bi'ah, and yet she can eat Terumah when she is acquired with Kesef, certainly a Bas Yisrael who can be acquired through Kidushei Bi'ah should be permitted to eat Terumah. RASHI (DH Zo) explains that the source that teaches that a Bas Yisrael may eat Terumah as a result of Kidushei Bi'ah is the verse "Kol Tahor b'Veis'cha Yochal Oso" (Bamidbar 18:11).

Why does Rashi say that the source for an Arusah's right to eat Terumah is the verse "Kol Tahor?" The Gemara teaches in a number of places that a Bas Yisrael who is betrothed to a Kohen may eat Terumah because she is considered "Kinyan Kaspo" (Vayikra 22:11) (see Kesuvos 57b)!

ANSWER: RASHI is pointing out that our Gemara cannot be learning that "Kinyan Kaspo" is the source for the right of a Bas Yisrael betrothed to a Kohen to eat Terumah, because the Gemara (in its Kal v'Chomer) assumes that it is more obvious that Bi'ah enables her to eat Terumah than does Kesef. If the source is from "Kinyan Kaspo," then it is just as clear that a Kinyan with *Kesef* lets her eat Terumah. Therefore, Rashi explains that Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah learns that Bi'ah (which makes Nisu'in) allows an Arusah to eat Terumah from the verse "Kol Tahor b'Veis'cha" -- teaching that a woman is considered "in the house" of the husband only after Nisu'in, and therefore only Bi'ah, which makes Nisu'in, allows her to eat Terumah. Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah learns from a Kal v'Chomer that even Kidushei Kesef allows her to eat Terumah.

Why, then, does the Gemara in Kesuvos cite a different source, saying that an Arusah Bas Yisrael may eat the Terumah of her Kohen husband because of "Kinyan Kaspo?" It would seem that the Gemara in Kesuvos is following the second version of our Gemara, which maintains that an Arusah may eat Terumah without the Kal v'Chomer.

TOSFOS in Yevamos (68b) asks why the verse of "Kol Tahor b'Veis'cha" is necessary according to the Gemara in Kesuvos that learns that the verse of "Kinyan Kaspo" teaches that an Arusah may eat Terumah. If an Arusah may eat Terumah, then certainly when she becomes a Nesu'ah she may continue to eat Terumah!

Tosfos there answers that "Kol Tahor" is only an Asmachta.

Tosfos here (DH u'Mah and DH Zo), however, seems to take a different approach. Tosfos explains that both verses are necessary. The verse of "Kol Tahor" reveals that Kidushin of a woman is in the category of "Kinyan Kaspo." We might have thought that only an Amah or Eved who is fully owned by her master is considered "Kinyan Kaspo;" this verse teaches that even an Ishah who is not really owned by her husband is still considered "Kinyan Kaspo," and thus she may eat Terumah from the time of Erusin.

This might explain another point that the Acharonim raise. We find that if a Shifchah of a Kohen becomes a Zonah, she may still eat Terumah. In contrast, if a wife of a Kohen becomes a Zonah, she may not eat Terumah. If both women eat the Terumah of their husbands who are Kohanim because they are the "Kinyan Kaspo" of the Kohen, then why should they each have different Halachos (see KOVETZ HE'OROS #61)?

The answer might be that they are not really eating Terumah through the same mechanism. The wife eats not because she is owned by the husband, but because she is part of the home of the husband; that is to say, she is given the same status as her husband because of "Ishto k'Gufo." Therefore, it is possible for her to become invalidated from eating Terumah if she becomes a Zonah, since she is eating Terumah based on her own merit. This is learned from the fact that the Torah teaches us from "Kol Tahor b'Veis'cha" that the wife may eat Terumah.

QUESTION: Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah taught a Kal v'Chomer to prove that an Arusah Bas Yisrael married to a Kohen should be permitted to eat Terumah. His Kal v'Chomer asserted that since a Shifchah Kena'anis is not acquired through Bi'ah and thus cannot eat Terumah with Bi'ah, and yet she can eat Terumah when she is acquired with Kesef, certainly a Bas Yisrael who can be acquired through Kidushei Bi'ah should be permitted to eat Terumah when acquired with Kesef.

The Gemara asks which type of Bi'ah and which type of Kesef is Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah discussing? If he is referring to Bi'ah with Chupah, and Kesef with Chupah, then in both cases she is permitted to eat Terumah! Why does the Beraisa conclude that the Rabanan decreed that she may not eat Terumah with Kesef? Once Chupah has been performed, there is no Gezeirah not to eat Terumah!

RASHI explains that when the Gemara suggests that the Bas Yisrael can eat Terumah through Bi'ah or Kesef together with Chupah, it means that she can eat Terumah when "Bi'ah was done after Chupah," and she can eat Terumah when she is betrothed with Kesef and *afterwards* she enters the Chupah.

Rashi seems to be referring to the Bi'ah and Kesef of Kidushin which permit a woman to eat Terumah when done together with Chupah, as all of the Acharonim explain. Why, then, does Rashi write that Bi'ah was done *after* the Chupah? If Bi'ah creates Kidushin, Rashi should have said that the Bi'ah was done *before* the Chupah, just like he writes with regard to Kesef. How could Chupah be done *before* the act of Kidushin?

The RASHASH and other Acharonim answer that Rashi indeed holds that Chupah can be performed before Kidushin, so that when the Kidushin takes effect, the wife will not need another Chupah, as the HAGAHOS MORDECHAI (#546) quotes in Rashi's name.

However, even if this is true, why does Rashi explain Bi'ah and Kesef differently? He should either explain that both were done before Chupah or both were done after Chupah! In addition, why should Rashi explain that this Gemara is discussing a strange type of Chupah that was done before the Bi'ah? Why should he not explain that it is discussing the normal type of a Chupah that was done after the Kidushei Bi'ah? (ATZMOS YOSEF, RASHASH, and others)

ANSWER: It seems that Rashi was bothered by the way in which the Gemara rejects this manner of explaining Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah's Kal v'Chomer. The Gemara says that if Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah is referring to Bi'ah together with Chupah, and to Kesef together with Chupah, then why does the Beraisa conclude that the Rabanan decreed that a woman should not eat Terumah with Kidushei Kesef? After Kesef with Chupah, she certainly should be able to eat Terumah!

Why does the Gemara accept the Kal v'Chomer and raise a problem only with the conclusion of the Beraisa? The Kal v'Chomer itself should be problematic if Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah is referring to Kesef together with Chupah! Why should Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah have to learn that Kesef is Koneh with Chupah from the fact that Bi'ah is Koneh with Chupah? If Bi'ah is Koneh with Chupah, then the reason is because we learn from the verse, "Kol Tahor b'Veis'cha" (Bamidbar 18:11), that she can eat Terumah after marriage (see previous Insight). We should be able to learn from the same verse that a woman may eat Terumah when Chupah is performed after Kidushei *Kesef*! (See IMREI BINYAMIN.)

Rashi, therefore, understands that the Gemara is suggesting that Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah derives Kesef with Chupah from a woman who does Bi'ah *after* her Chupah. The Gemara means that perhaps the verse "Kol Tahor b'Veis'cha" is referring not only to a woman who is married, but also to a woman who entered the Chupah and performed Bi'ah ("Nichnesah l'Chupah v'Niv'alah"). Accordingly, we can learn from the verse only that a woman eats Terumah through Bi'ah after Chupah, but not that she can eat with a regular Chupah that was performed following Kidushin.

Therefore, Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah learns from a Kal v'Chomer that every Chupah, even without Bi'ah, should allow the woman to eat Terumah.

The Gemara rejects this interpretation of the Beraisa because the Beraisa should not have concluded that the Rabanan prohibited the woman from eating Terumah when Kesef is given together with Chupah. The Halachah is that a married woman certainly can eat Terumah even before Bi'ah.

Once the Gemara rejects this, it reverts to the understanding that the verse "Kol Tahor b'Veis'cha" is indeed referring to a case of "Nichnesah l'Chupah v'Lo Niv'alah," when she entered the Chupah but did not yet perform Bi'ah, and that the Kal v'Chomer is teaching that even Erusin alone should permit her to eat Terumah.

According to this interpretation, Rashi does not mean to teach that Chupah can be done before Kidushin, since he is not referring to Bi'ah of Kidushin. (M. Kornfeld)

QUESTION: Ravina explains that Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah's Kal v'Chomer was made in order to teach that the Rabanan did not make an enactment to prohibit an Arusah from eating Terumah because of the fear of "Simpon." According to Ravina, the Kal v'Chomer asserts that if a Shifchah Kena'anis is able to eat Terumah when she is bought with Kinyan Kesef, even though Bi'ah does not allow her to eat Terumah, then certainly a wife whom the Rabanan permitted to eat Terumah after Bi'as Nisu'in should be permitted to eat Terumah after Kesef of Erusin, and the Rabanan should not prohibit her because of "Simpon."

How can we make a Kal v'Chomer like this to override the consideration of "Simpon?" The reason a woman eats Terumah after Nisu'in is because there is no concern for "Simpon," since a man has his wife examined thoroughly for defects before Nisu'in (Rashi DH Zo). After Erusin, however, the husband has not finished checking his wife thoroughly and therefore "Simpon" must be taken into consideration. A Kal v'Chomer cannot prevent the Rabanan from prohibiting her from eating Terumah when there exists a logical consideration that there is concern for "Simpon!" (PNEI YEHOSHUA, MAHARIT)

ANSWERS:

(a) The ATZMOS YOSEF explains that according to Ravina, Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah is not actually learning this Halachah from a Kal v'Chomer. Rather, he is suggesting a simple "Meh Matzinu:" just as the Rabanan did not decree that a Shifchah may not eat Terumah because of the concern for "Simpon," the Rabanan should not decree that a wife should not eat Terumah because of the concern of "Simpon."

In fact, the RAMBAN and RITVA explain throughout the entire Sugya that Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah is relying on a "Meh Matzinu." He cannot be suggesting a Kal v'Chomer based on the fact that a Shifchah is not acquired through Bi'ah, since the Kinyan of Bi'ah is not applicable to a Shifchah in the first place, since her Kinyan is not one of Ishus, matrimony, but is a monetary Kinyan. It is obvious that Bi'ah can only create a bond of Ishus, and it cannot be used to acquire a piece of property. Therefore, the fact that a Shifchah cannot be acquired through Bi'ah does not show that she is less easily able to eat Terumah than a wife.

(b) The MAHARIT suggests that Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah indeed is suggesting a Kal v'Chomer, as follows. If the Rabanan took into consideration the concern for "Simpon," there should be a larger concern for "Simpon" in the case of a Shifchah than in the case of a wife, an Eshes Ish. The reason is because the possibility of a "Simpon" occurring will remain throughout the servitude of the Shifchah, since at any time he may discover something that makes the Kinyan into a "Mekach Ta'us." In contrast, a "Simpon" will not be a lasting concern in the case of a wife, since at the time that they perform Nisu'in the husband certainly ensures that she has no defects. After Nisu'in, there is no longer any concern for the possibility of "Simpon."

According to this, Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah's Kal v'Chomer is that the Rabanan did not prevent a Shifchah from eating Terumah, even though "Simpon" in the case of a Shifchah will be an everlasting concern, because there is no Bi'ah with a Shifchah which would prompt the owner to examine her. Accordingly, the Rabanan certainly should not decree that a wife cannot eat Terumah because of "Simpon," because "Simpon" is less of a concern in the case of a wife, because eventually (at the time of Nisu'in) we will be certain that there is no "Simpon." (In addition, since a man marries a woman in order to have an intimate relationship with her, he certainly makes sure that there is no "Simpon" from the time that he makes Kidushin.)