The Gemara says that the practical difference between these two opinions are
the cases of "Kibel, Masar, v'Halach" (literally, "he accepted, he gave over,
and he went"). RASHI explains that "Masar v'Halach" refers to when the father
"gave over" his daughter to the husband, or when the father's emissaries
"went" with the emissaries of the husband when bringing the Kalah to the
husband's home. In such cases, there is still a fear of "Simpon" (because the
husband does not fully examine her for blemishes until the time that he
starts supporting her), but there is no fear that she will feed Terumah to
her siblings, because she has already left her father and her father's home.
The Gemara concludes later on this page that nowadays the Kalah may not eat
Terumah until the Chupah is performed, not like the original enactment
mentioned in the Mishnah. This is because of "Simpon," since the husband does
not finish examining her for blemishes until the Chupah.
According to the Gemara's conclusion, it should be clear that if the father
gives over his daughter to the emissaries of the husband, she still cannot
eat Terumah, because there still is a fear of "Simpon." How can this be
reconciled with the Gemara earlier (48b) in which Rav Asi states that from
the time of the Mesirah (giving over) of the woman to the emissaries of the
husband, the woman may eat Terumah? (It is true that Rav argues in that
Gemara and says that she may not eat Terumah at that point. However, Rav Asi
maintains that she can. How can his view be reconciled with the Gemara here?)
(a) TOSFOS YESHANIM (in the margin of the Gemara) writes that Rav and Rav Asi
argue whether the husband already checks for blemishes at the time the father
gives over his daughter to the husband's emissaries (as Tosfos says on 48b,
DH Rav Asi). Our Sugya follows the opinion of Rav. Rav Asi holds the husband
*does* check for blemishes at the time he gives over his daughter to the
husband's emissaries, and therefore Mesirah ("Masar") will not be a practical
difference between the reasons given by Ula and Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah. (See
Tosfos there who raises a question on this answer.)
(b) TOSFOS in Kidushin (11a, DH Kibel) and the RITVA in our Sugya explain
that the words "Masar v'Halach" are not two different cases, but they refer
to a single case. The case to which they refer is when the father gave over
("Masar") his daughter to the emissaries of the husband, and then the father
went along with them ("Halach") to the husband's home. (That explains why it
says "Halach" in the singular ("he went") and not "Halchu" in the plural
("they went").) Since the father is traveling with the husband's emissaries,
the woman cannot eat Terumah even according to Rav Asi.
(c) The RA'AVAD, cited by the RASHBA, explains that all three words are
describing a single case. "Kibel" means that the father accepted the money of
Kidushin, and "Masar v'Halach" means that immediately upon receiving the
Kidushin, the father gave his daughter over to the husband, who took her with
him to his home. There is a fear of "Simpon" because the husband obviously
did not have enough time to check for blemishes.
Accordingly, it is possible that Rav Asi maintains that she may eat Terumah
only when the father gives her over to the husband after a period of time
long enough for the husband to have checked her for blemishes.
(d) RASHI (48b) suggests the simplest answer. He says that Rav and Rav Asi,
who argue whether the Kalah may eat Terumah from the time of the Mesirah,
also argue concerning the reason why the Rabanan prohibited an Arusah from
eating Terumah. Rav holds like Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah, that the reason she
may not eat Terumah is because of "Simpon," and that is why she is still
prohibited from eating Terumah after Mesirah. Rav Asi holds like Ula, that
the reason she may not eat Terumah is because she might feed her siblings
Terumah, and thus once she has left her father's home, she may eat Terumah
because there is no fear that she will feed her siblings.
Although our Gemara concludes that nowadays a Kalah may not eat Terumah until
the Chupah because of "Simpon" (and not because of the fear that she might
feed Terumah to her siblings), there is a Tana in Kidushin (10b) who says
that the reason an Arusah may not eat Terumah until the Chupah is because she
might feed her siblings, and not only because of "Simpon" (see PNEI YEHOSHUA
on 48b and SHITAH MEKUBETZES there). Even though she normally eats what her
Chasan gives her in a separate section of the house, there is still a concern
that she might feed her siblings (even after twelve months have passed).
However, there is a problem with this answer. According to Rashi's
explanation, "Halach" means that the emissaries of the father went along with
the emissaries of the husband. How could that be a practical difference
between Ula and Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah? In such a case, even Rav Asi -- who
holds like Ula that we are afraid that she will feed her siblings Terumah --
says that she cannot eat Terumah. If the emissaries of the father went with
the emissaries of the husband, all Amora'im agree that she cannot eat Terumah
until she is formally given over through Mesirah to the emissaries of the
husband. How can Rashi say that there is no fear that she might feed her
siblings Terumah in a case of "Halach!" (PNEI YEHOSHUA 48b, and REBBI AKIVA
EIGER here)
To answer this, we must first answer another question on Rashi's explanation.
How could Rashi say that in a case of "Halach," where the emissaries of the
father went with the emissaries of the husband, there is no concern that she
will feed Terumah to her siblings because they are not with her? According to
that reasoning, we should say that every time she walks out of her father's
home without her siblings she is permitted to eat Terumah! Obviously this is
not the case, since we assume that she is going to come back into the home
and eat again with her siblings, and thus we prohibit her from eating Terumah
because she is still going to eat with her siblings in the future.
Accordingly, the same should apply to a case where the emissaries of the
father went with the emissaries of the husband. Perhaps the emissaries of the
father, in whose custody he put his daughter, will turn back and return the
daughter to her father's home. In the case of "Masar" this is not a problem,
since the Kalah has already been given over to the husband and she is now
under his guardianship and she cannot return to live in her father's home.
But while she is still in the guardianship of her father, she should be
prohibited to eat Terumah! (See He'aros b'Maseches Kesuvos, for a similar
question in the name of Hagaon Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv.)
The answer to this question appears to be as follows. Rashi does not mean
that she is permitted to eat Terumah from the moment that the emissaries of
the father walk away with the emissaries of the husband. She is still
prohibited to eat Terumah at that point, since they might turn around and
bring her back to her father's home. Rather, after the emissaries of the
father give her over to the emissaries of the husband, then she may begin
eating Terumah because she is in the husband's domain.
Why, though, does Rashi say that at the time that the emissaries of t2he
father went with the emissaries of the husband, she may already eat Terumah?
The answer is that Rashi understands that once the emissaries of the father
give her over to the emissaries of the husband, then that shows that from the
time that the emissaries of the father left his home to escort her to the
husband's home, she was not going to come back, and thus *retroactive1y* she
could eat Terumah from that point.
If, practically, she cannot actually eat Terumah from that point (since she
cannot *eat* retroactively!), what difference does it make to say that she
may eat Terumah from the time that the emissaries of the father depart with
her with the emissaries of the husband? The practical difference might be in
a case where the woman ate Terumah after the emissaries of the father left
with the emissaries of the husband but *before* before they gave her over to
the emissaries of the husband. If she was prohibited mid'Rabanan from eating
Terumah, then she would have to pay restitution of "Keren v'Chomesh" (the
principal plus a fifth) like any non-Kohen who eats Terumah. But if,
retroactively, it becomes permitted for her to eat Terumah, then she does not
have to pay restitution if she improperly ate Terumah before she was handed
over to the emissaries of the husband.
It is now clear why Rav Asi states that it is permitted for her to eat
Terumah from the time of Mesirah. Rav Asi is referring to when she is
permitted to eat Terumah *l'Chatchilah*. The Gemara here, on the other hand,
says that as soon as she goes with the emissaries of the father in order to
be given to the emissaries of the husband, b'Di'eved she may eat Terumah from
that point after she has been given over to the emissaries of the husband.
Why does Rashi explain the Gemara this way? Why does he not explain that
"Halach" means that the emissaries of the father gave her over to the
emissaries of the husband? Why does he say that they *went* with the
emissaries of the husband? The answer is that Rashi understands that if that
is what "Halach" means, then there would be no reason for the Gemara to
mention "Masar v'Halach" as two different cases. If she is permitted to eat
Terumah in both cases because she has been given over to the husband or to
his emissaries, then it does not make a difference who gave her over, her
father or his emissaries. That is why Rashi learns that the case of "Halach"
refers to *before* she was given over to the emissaries of the husband. (M.
Kornfeld)