Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

March 21, 2016 | 讬状讗 讘讗讚专 讘壮 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Kiddushin 10

A continuing discussion of Rabbi Yochanan and Rebbi’s positions on the source for kiddushin/betrothal effected by sexual relations. 聽2 other questions are asked. 聽Is kiddushin by sexual relations effected by the beginning of the act or the end? 聽Is kiddushin is done by sexual relations, does that same act also effect the marriage or only the betrothal? 聽 Various texts are brought to try to answer this question but they are inconclusive.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 诇注谞讬谉 拽谞住 讚讻讜诇讛讜 诪砖诇诪讬 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪拽讟诇讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诪转 讛讗讬砖 讗砖专 砖讻讘 注诪讛 诇讘讚讜

Rabbi Zeira said: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi concedes with regard to the fine of a rapist and a seducer that they all pay this fine, and they are not exempt merely because their acts of intercourse were with a non-virgin. The Gemara asks: In what way is this case different from the death penalty? With respect to the death penalty they are punished as though they engaged in intercourse with a betrothed non-virgin, and yet concerning the fine, they pay as though they engaged in intercourse with a virgin. The Gemara answers: It is different there, with regard to capital punishment, as the verse states: 鈥淭hen the man only who lay with her shall die鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:25), which indicates that only one man is executed for having sexual intercourse with a virgin, and no more.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讗讬 诇讘讚讜 诪讗讬 注讘讚讬 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讛讜 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讜诪转讜 讙诐 砖谞讬讛诐 注讚 砖讬讛讬讜 砖讜讬谉 讻讗讞讚 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讗讜诪专 讜诪转 讛讗讬砖 讗砖专 砖讻讘 注诪讛 诇讘讚讜

The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, what do they do with this term 鈥渙nly鈥? The Gemara answers: They require it for that which is taught in a baraita. The verse states: 鈥淭hen they shall both of them die鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:22). This indicates that this is not the case unless the two of them are equal, i.e., both deserve punishment. But if one of them cannot be punished, e.g., if he is a minor, the other is not executed either. This is the statement of Rabbi Oshaya. Rabbi Yonatan says that the verse: 鈥淭hen the man only who lay with her shall die,鈥 indicates that in some cases only one of them is liable to receive the death penalty.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讗讬 住讘专讗 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 讗诐 讻谉 谞讻转讜讘 拽专讗 讘注讜诇转 讗讬砖 诪讗讬 讘注讜诇转 讘注诇 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yo岣nan, from where does he derive this conclusion that only a woman鈥檚 husband can render her a non-virgin through intercourse in an atypical manner, if he uses this verse to derive the mode of betrothal by means of sexual intercourse? The Gemara answers: If so, that this verse is teaching only one halakha, let the verse write: If a man be found lying with a beulat ish, literally, a woman who engaged in sexual intercourse with a man. What is indicated by the term beulat ba鈥檃l,鈥 literally, who engaged in sexual intercourse with a husband? Learn two halakhot from it: First, that one can betroth a woman through intercourse, and second, that only a woman鈥檚 husband can render her a non-virgin by intercourse in an atypical manner.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 转讞讬诇转 讘讬讗讛 拽讜谞讛 讗讜 住讜祝 讘讬讗讛 拽讜谞讛 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讻讙讜谉 砖讛注专讛 讘讛 讜驻砖讟讛 讬讚讛 讜拽讘诇讛 拽讚讜砖讬谉 诪讗讞专

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Since intercourse is not a momentary act but has different stages, does the beginning of intercourse effect acquisition or does the end of intercourse effect acquisition? When exactly is the moment of betrothal? The Gemara comments: The practical difference resulting from this question is in a case where one engaged in only the initial stage of intercourse with her and in the meantime she reached her hand out and accepted betrothal from another man. If the beginning of sexual intercourse effects acquisition, the other man鈥檚 betrothal is meaningless. If the end of sexual intercourse effects acquisition, she is betrothed to the other man.

讗讬 谞诪讬 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讚拽讗 拽谞讬 讘转讜诇讛 讘讘讬讗讛 诪讗讬 讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讻诇 讛讘讜注诇 讚注转讜 注诇 讙诪专 讘讬讗讛

Alternatively, there is a difference with regard to a High Priest who acquires a virgin through sexual intercourse. If only the end of intercourse effects acquisition, she is no longer a virgin at the time of the betrothal, which would mean that a High Priest cannot acquire a woman through intercourse, as it is prohibited for him to marry a non-virgin (Leviticus 21:14). What, then, is the halakha? Ameimar said in the name of Rava: Anyone who engages in sexual intercourse has the completion of the act of intercourse in mind, not the beginning. Therefore, the acquisition is complete only when the act has been completed.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讘讬讗讛 谞砖讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 讗讜 讗讬专讜住讬谉 注讜砖讛 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讬讜专砖讛

Additionally, a dilemma was raised before the Sages: Does the sexual intercourse that is performed to effect betrothal effect marriage at the same time that it effects betrothal, or does it effect only betrothal? The practical difference that arises from this question concerns all cases where it matters whether a woman is betrothed or married. For example, one issue is whether the act allows him to inherit property from her. If he betroths her through intercourse, does he inherit her property when she dies as he would if they were married?

讜诇讬讟诪讗 诇讛 讜诇讛驻专 谞讚专讬讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 谞砖讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 讬讜专砖讛 讜诪讬讟诪讗 诇讛 讜诪讬驻专 谞讚专讬讛 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讬专讜住讬谉 注讜砖讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讜专砖讛 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讬讟诪讗 诇讛 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讬驻专 谞讚专讬讛 诪讗讬

And if he is a priest, is he required to become ritually impure to bury her, as he must do for his wife? And similarly, does a betrothal through intercourse allow him to nullify her vows by himself, without her father鈥檚 participation? If you say that intercourse effects marriage, he inherits property from her, and he becomes impure to bury her, and he nullifies her vows alone. And if you say that it effects only betrothal, he does not inherit property from her, and he does not become ritually impure to bury her, and he cannot nullify her vows alone. What, then, is the halakha?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转讗 砖诪注 讛讗讘 讝讻讗讬 讘讘转讜 讘拽讚讜砖讬讛 讘讻住祝 讘砖讟专 讜讘讘讬讗讛 讜讝讻讗讬 讘诪爪讬讗转讛 讜讘诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讛 讜讘讛驻专转 谞讚专讬讛 讜诪拽讘诇 讗转 讙讬讟讛 讜讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 讘讞讬讬讛 谞讬砖讗转 讬转专 注诇讬讜 讛讘注诇 砖讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 讘讞讬讬讛

Abaye said: Come and hear a resolution from the following mishna (Ketubot 46b): A father has authority over his daughter with regard to her betrothal, whether it is through money, through a document, or through sexual intercourse. Likewise, a father has a right to items she has found, and to her earnings, and to effect the nullification of her vows, i.e., a father may nullify his daughter鈥檚 vows. And he accepts her bill of divorce on her behalf if she is divorced from betrothal before she becomes a grown woman. And although he inherits her property when she dies, e.g., property she inherited from her mother鈥檚 family, he does not enjoy the profits of her property during her lifetime. If the daughter married, the husband has more rights and obligations than her father had before the marriage, as he enjoys the profits of her property during her lifetime.

拽转谞讬 讘讬讗讛 讜拽转谞讬 谞讬砖讗转 讻讬 拽转谞讬 谞讬砖讗转 讗砖讗专讗

The mishna teaches that a man has rights to his daughter鈥檚 betrothal through sexual intercourse, and it subsequently teaches: If the daughter married. This indicates that intercourse effects only betrothal. The Gemara rejects this claim: When it teaches: If the daughter married, that is referring to the other modes mentioned here, i.e., betrothal by means of money or a document. In these cases there is a difference between betrothal and marriage, while it is possible that betrothal through intercourse effects marriage as well.

讗诪专 专讘讗 转讗 砖诪注 讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诪转拽讚砖转 讘讘讬讗讛 讜讗诐 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讬讘诐 拽谞讗讛 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜诪讟诪讗讛 讗转 讘讜注诇讛

Rava said: Come and hear a resolution from a baraita: A girl who is three years and one day old can be betrothed through intercourse, and if her yavam engaged in intercourse with her, he has acquired her. And if she is married, one is liable if he engages in intercourse with her, due to her status as a married woman. And if she is impure as a menstruating woman, she renders one who engages in intercourse with her ritually impure for seven days.

诇讟诪讗 诪砖讻讘 转讞转讜谉 讻注诇讬讜谉

And he renders impure the object upon which he lies like the upper one. One who engages in sexual intercourse with a menstruating woman renders the objects upon which he lies ritually impure even if he has no direct contact with them.

讜讗诐 谞讬砖讗转 诇讻讛谉 讗讜讻诇转 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讗诐 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讗讞讚 诪讻诇 注专讬讜转 砖讘转讜专讛 诪讜诪转讬谉 注诇 讬讚讛 讜讛讬讗 驻讟讜专讛 讜讗诐 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛驻住讜诇讬谉 驻住诇讛 诪谉 讛讻讛讜谞讛

And if she marries a priest she may partake of teruma from that point onward. And if one of those with whom sexual relations are forbidden by the Torah (see Leviticus, chapter 18) engages in intercourse with her, he is put to death due to his sin with her, and she is exempt from punishment as a minor. And if someone of unfit lineage, i.e., a man who would disqualify her from marrying a priest if he engaged in sexual intercourse with her, engages in intercourse with her, he has disqualified her from marrying into the priesthood. This concludes the baraita.

拽转谞讬 讘讬讗讛 讜拽转谞讬 谞讬砖讗转 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬 讛谞讬 谞砖讜讗讬谉 讚讻讛谉 谞讬谞讛讜 讗讜讻诇转 讘转专讜诪讛

The Gemara analyzes this source. It is taught in that baraita: She can be betrothed through sexual intercourse, and it is taught separately: And if she marries a priest. This indicates that intercourse does not effect marriage. The Gemara rejects this: This is what the baraita said: If this betrothal through intercourse is a marriage to a priest, she may partake of teruma. It is possible that there are not two separate stages here but a single action, as sexual intercourse effects marriage.

转讗 砖诪注 讜讻讘专 砖诇讞 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘讙 讘讙 讗爪诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讛 诇谞爪讬讘讬谉 砖诪注转讬 注诇讬讱 砖讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讗专讜住讛 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讗讜讻诇转 讘转专讜诪讛 砖诇讞 诇讜 讜讗转讛 讗讬 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讻谉 诪讜讞讝拽谞讬 讘讱 砖讗转讛 讘拽讬 讘讞讚专讬 转讜专讛 诇讚专讜砖 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讗讬 讗转讛 讬讜讚注

Come and hear a proof from a baraita: And Yo岣nan ben Bag Bag already sent a message to Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira in the city of Netzivin: I heard about you that you say that the daughter of a non-priest betrothed to a priest may partake of teruma. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira sent back this reply to him: And do you not say so? I know about you that you are an expert in many areas of Torah; do you not know how to teach halakhot based on an a fortiori inference?

讜诪讛 砖驻讞讛 讻谞注谞讬转 砖讗讬谉 讘讬讗转讛 诪讗讻讬诇转讛 讘转专讜诪讛 讻住驻讛 诪讗讻讬诇转讛 讘转专讜诪讛 讝讜 砖讘讬讗转讛 诪讗讻讬诇转讛 讘转专讜诪讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讻住驻讛 诪讗讻讬诇转讛 讘转专讜诪讛 讗讘诇 诪讛 讗注砖讛 砖讛专讬 讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讬谉 讗专讜住讛 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讗讜讻诇转 讘转专讜诪讛 注讚 砖转讻谞住 诇讞讜驻讛

The a fortiori inference is as follows: If in the case of a Canaanite maidservant, whose sexual intercourse with a priest does not allow her to partake of teruma, as she is not betrothed to him, her money, i.e., if a priest acquires her through money, allows her to partake of teruma, is it not logical with regard to this betrothed woman, whose sexual intercourse with a priest allows her to partake of teruma, that her betrothal money from the priest should allow her to partake of teruma? If this is indeed the case, the daughter of a non-priest betrothed to a priest should be permitted to partake of teruma. But what can I do, as the Sages said: By rabbinic law, the daughter of a non-priest betrothed to a priest may not partake of teruma until she enters the wedding canopy.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讘讘讬讗讛 砖注诇 讬讚讬 讞讜驻讛 讜讻住祝 砖注诇 讬讚讬 讞讜驻讛 讘转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪讬讻诇 讗讻诇讛

The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of the comparison between money and sexual intercourse? If it is referring to a case of sexual intercourse by means of a wedding canopy, i.e., after they are married, and betrothal through money where the marriage is then completed by means of a wedding canopy, in both cases she may partake of teruma even by rabbinic law, as she is a full-fledged married woman.

讜讗诇讗 讘讘讬讗讛 砖注诇 讬讚讬 讞讜驻讛 讜讻住祝 砖诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 讞讜驻讛 讛讻讗 转专转讬 讜讛讻讗 讞讚讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘讘讬讗讛 砖诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 讞讜驻讛 讜讻住祝 砖诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 讞讜驻讛

Or rather one could say that this comparison is referring to sexual intercourse by means of a wedding canopy, and betrothal through money not by means of a wedding canopy. If so, the a fortiori inference is not valid, as here, in the case of intercourse, there are two stages of acquisition, intercourse followed by the wedding canopy, and here, in the case of money, there is only one stage. Rather, is it not correct to say that the comparison between money and intercourse is referring to sexual intercourse not by means of a wedding canopy and also money not by means of a wedding canopy?

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 谞砖讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诇讬诪讗 诇讛 讘讬讗讛 诪讻住祝 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 拽讚讜砖讬谉 注讜砖讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗 讚驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗 讚诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛

Granted, if you say that intercourse by itself effects marriage, it is due to that reason that it is obvious to Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira that the mode of sexual intercourse is stronger than money, and allows her to partake of teruma. But if you say that sexual intercourse effects only betrothal, what is different here, in the case of betrothal through intercourse, that it is obvious to him that it allows her to partake of teruma, and what is different here, in the case of betrothal through money, that he is uncertain and must derive the matter through an a fortiori inference? In both cases she is only betrothed.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 讘讘讬讗讛 砖注诇 讬讚讬 讞讜驻讛 讜讻住祝 砖诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 讞讜驻讛 讜讚拽讗诪专转 讛讻讗 转专转讬 讜讛讻讗 讞讚讗 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讬讛讗 讗讬转讬讛

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Actually, I will say to you that he is speaking about sexual intercourse by means of a wedding canopy and money not by means of a wedding canopy. And as for that which you said in opposition to this a fortiori inference: Here there are two stages of acquisition, and here there is only one stage. In any event, there is a valid a fortiori inference.

讜讛讻讬 砖诇讞 诇讬讛 讜诪讛 砖驻讞讛 讻谞注谞讬转 砖讗讬谉 讘讬讗转讛 诪讗讻讬诇转讛 讘转专讜诪讛 讗驻讬诇讜 注诇 讬讚讬 讞讜驻讛 讻住驻讛 诪讗讻讬诇转讛 讘诇讗 讞讜驻讛 讝讜 砖讘讬讗转讛 诪讗讻讬诇转讛 讘转专讜诪讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讞讜驻讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讻住驻讛 诪讗讻讬诇转讛 讘转专讜诪讛 讘诇讗 讞讜驻讛

And this is what Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira sent him, i.e., his statement should be understood as follows: If a Canaanite maidservant, whose intercourse with a priest does not allow her to partake of teruma, even by means of a wedding canopy, and yet her money allows her to partake of teruma without the means of a wedding canopy, is it not logical with regard to this betrothed woman, whose intercourse with a priest allows her to partake of teruma by means of a wedding canopy, that her betrothal money from the priest should allow her to partake of teruma without the means of a wedding canopy?

讗讘诇 诪讛 讗注砖讛 砖讛专讬 讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讬谉 讗专讜住讛 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讗讜讻诇转 讘转专讜诪讛 注讚 砖转讻谞住 诇讞讜驻讛 诪砖讜诐 讚注讜诇讗

But what can I do, as the Sages said: By rabbinic law, the daughter of a non-priest betrothed to a priest may not partake of teruma until she enters the wedding canopy, due to the reason stated by Ulla. According to Ulla, there is a concern that she may feed her siblings or members of her family teruma while she is still living in her father鈥檚 house.

讜讘谉 讘讙 讘讙 讙讘讬 砖驻讞讛 讻谞注谞讬转 诇讗 砖讬讬专 讘拽谞讬谞讛 讛讻讗 砖讬讬专 讘拽谞讬谞讛

And ben Bag Bag explains why one cannot accept this a fortiori inference involving a Canaanite maidservant: With regard to a Canaanite maidservant who is purchased with money, the buyer does not leave out anything from her acquisition, i.e., he completes the purchase in full. Here, in the case of betrothal, he leaves out part of her acquisition, as the stage of marriage has yet to be performed. Therefore, these two cases are dissimilar.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讬驻砖讟 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 讚讗讻诇讛 讜诪讚专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讚砖诇讞 诇讬讛

Ravina said that by Torah law, it is obvious to Yo岣nan ben Bag Bag that she may partake of teruma also when she is betrothed to a priest through money alone, as she is acquired with his money. And the question that he sent him is referring to the halakha by rabbinic law.

讜讛讻讬 砖诇讞 诇讬讛 砖诪注转讬 注诇讬讱 砖讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讗专讜住讛 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讗讜讻诇转 讘转专讜诪讛 讜诇讗 讞讬讬砖转 诇住讬诪驻讜谉 砖诇讞 诇讬讛 讜讗转讛 讗讬 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讻谉 诪讜讞讝拽谞讬 讘讱 砖讗转讛 讘拽讬 讘讞讚专讬 转讜专讛 诇讚专讜砖 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讗讬 讗转讛 讬讜讚注

Ravina elaborates: And this is the question that he sent to him: I heard about you that you say that in practice the daughter of a non-priest betrothed to a priest may partake of teruma, and we are not concerned about an annulling factor [simfon], i.e., that he might find some blemish in her through which the betrothal would be considered retroactively invalid. If so, she would have eaten teruma when she was not permitted to do so. And it was with regard to this issue that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira sent to him: And do you not say this? I know about you that you are an expert in many areas of Torah; do you not know how to teach halakhot based on an a fortiori inference?

讜诪讛 砖驻讞讛 讻谞注谞讬转 砖讗讬谉 讘讬讗转讛 诪讗讻讬诇转讛 讘转专讜诪讛 讻住驻讛 诪讗讻讬诇转讛 讘转专讜诪讛 讜诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇住讬诪驻讜谉 讝讜 砖讘讬讗转讛 诪讗讻讬诇转讛 讘转专讜诪讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讻住驻讛 诪讗讻讬诇转讛 讘转专讜诪讛 讜诇讗 谞讬讞讜砖 诇住讬诪驻讜谉 讗讘诇 诪讛 讗注砖讛 砖讛专讬 讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗专讜住讛 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谞讛 讗讜讻诇转 讘转专讜诪讛

The a fortiori inference is as follows: If a Canaanite maidservant, whose engaging in intercourse with a priest does not allow her to partake of teruma, and yet her receiving purchase money allows her to partake of teruma, and we are not concerned about simfon, i.e., that the Canaanite maidservant may have some physical blemish that nullifies her purchase retroactively, is it not logical with regard to this betrothed woman, whose intercourse with a priest allows her to partake of teruma, that her receiving betrothal money from the priest should allow her to partake of teruma even before entering the wedding canopy, and we should not be concerned about simfon? But what can I do, as the Sages said: By rabbinic law the daughter of a non-priest betrothed to a priest may not partake of teruma

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Kiddushin 10

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Kiddushin 10

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 诇注谞讬谉 拽谞住 讚讻讜诇讛讜 诪砖诇诪讬 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪拽讟诇讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诪转 讛讗讬砖 讗砖专 砖讻讘 注诪讛 诇讘讚讜

Rabbi Zeira said: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi concedes with regard to the fine of a rapist and a seducer that they all pay this fine, and they are not exempt merely because their acts of intercourse were with a non-virgin. The Gemara asks: In what way is this case different from the death penalty? With respect to the death penalty they are punished as though they engaged in intercourse with a betrothed non-virgin, and yet concerning the fine, they pay as though they engaged in intercourse with a virgin. The Gemara answers: It is different there, with regard to capital punishment, as the verse states: 鈥淭hen the man only who lay with her shall die鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:25), which indicates that only one man is executed for having sexual intercourse with a virgin, and no more.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讗讬 诇讘讚讜 诪讗讬 注讘讚讬 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讛讜 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讜诪转讜 讙诐 砖谞讬讛诐 注讚 砖讬讛讬讜 砖讜讬谉 讻讗讞讚 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讗讜诪专 讜诪转 讛讗讬砖 讗砖专 砖讻讘 注诪讛 诇讘讚讜

The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, what do they do with this term 鈥渙nly鈥? The Gemara answers: They require it for that which is taught in a baraita. The verse states: 鈥淭hen they shall both of them die鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:22). This indicates that this is not the case unless the two of them are equal, i.e., both deserve punishment. But if one of them cannot be punished, e.g., if he is a minor, the other is not executed either. This is the statement of Rabbi Oshaya. Rabbi Yonatan says that the verse: 鈥淭hen the man only who lay with her shall die,鈥 indicates that in some cases only one of them is liable to receive the death penalty.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讗讬 住讘专讗 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 讗诐 讻谉 谞讻转讜讘 拽专讗 讘注讜诇转 讗讬砖 诪讗讬 讘注讜诇转 讘注诇 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yo岣nan, from where does he derive this conclusion that only a woman鈥檚 husband can render her a non-virgin through intercourse in an atypical manner, if he uses this verse to derive the mode of betrothal by means of sexual intercourse? The Gemara answers: If so, that this verse is teaching only one halakha, let the verse write: If a man be found lying with a beulat ish, literally, a woman who engaged in sexual intercourse with a man. What is indicated by the term beulat ba鈥檃l,鈥 literally, who engaged in sexual intercourse with a husband? Learn two halakhot from it: First, that one can betroth a woman through intercourse, and second, that only a woman鈥檚 husband can render her a non-virgin by intercourse in an atypical manner.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 转讞讬诇转 讘讬讗讛 拽讜谞讛 讗讜 住讜祝 讘讬讗讛 拽讜谞讛 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讻讙讜谉 砖讛注专讛 讘讛 讜驻砖讟讛 讬讚讛 讜拽讘诇讛 拽讚讜砖讬谉 诪讗讞专

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Since intercourse is not a momentary act but has different stages, does the beginning of intercourse effect acquisition or does the end of intercourse effect acquisition? When exactly is the moment of betrothal? The Gemara comments: The practical difference resulting from this question is in a case where one engaged in only the initial stage of intercourse with her and in the meantime she reached her hand out and accepted betrothal from another man. If the beginning of sexual intercourse effects acquisition, the other man鈥檚 betrothal is meaningless. If the end of sexual intercourse effects acquisition, she is betrothed to the other man.

讗讬 谞诪讬 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讚拽讗 拽谞讬 讘转讜诇讛 讘讘讬讗讛 诪讗讬 讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讻诇 讛讘讜注诇 讚注转讜 注诇 讙诪专 讘讬讗讛

Alternatively, there is a difference with regard to a High Priest who acquires a virgin through sexual intercourse. If only the end of intercourse effects acquisition, she is no longer a virgin at the time of the betrothal, which would mean that a High Priest cannot acquire a woman through intercourse, as it is prohibited for him to marry a non-virgin (Leviticus 21:14). What, then, is the halakha? Ameimar said in the name of Rava: Anyone who engages in sexual intercourse has the completion of the act of intercourse in mind, not the beginning. Therefore, the acquisition is complete only when the act has been completed.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讘讬讗讛 谞砖讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 讗讜 讗讬专讜住讬谉 注讜砖讛 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讬讜专砖讛

Additionally, a dilemma was raised before the Sages: Does the sexual intercourse that is performed to effect betrothal effect marriage at the same time that it effects betrothal, or does it effect only betrothal? The practical difference that arises from this question concerns all cases where it matters whether a woman is betrothed or married. For example, one issue is whether the act allows him to inherit property from her. If he betroths her through intercourse, does he inherit her property when she dies as he would if they were married?

讜诇讬讟诪讗 诇讛 讜诇讛驻专 谞讚专讬讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 谞砖讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 讬讜专砖讛 讜诪讬讟诪讗 诇讛 讜诪讬驻专 谞讚专讬讛 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讬专讜住讬谉 注讜砖讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讜专砖讛 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讬讟诪讗 诇讛 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讬驻专 谞讚专讬讛 诪讗讬

And if he is a priest, is he required to become ritually impure to bury her, as he must do for his wife? And similarly, does a betrothal through intercourse allow him to nullify her vows by himself, without her father鈥檚 participation? If you say that intercourse effects marriage, he inherits property from her, and he becomes impure to bury her, and he nullifies her vows alone. And if you say that it effects only betrothal, he does not inherit property from her, and he does not become ritually impure to bury her, and he cannot nullify her vows alone. What, then, is the halakha?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转讗 砖诪注 讛讗讘 讝讻讗讬 讘讘转讜 讘拽讚讜砖讬讛 讘讻住祝 讘砖讟专 讜讘讘讬讗讛 讜讝讻讗讬 讘诪爪讬讗转讛 讜讘诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讛 讜讘讛驻专转 谞讚专讬讛 讜诪拽讘诇 讗转 讙讬讟讛 讜讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 讘讞讬讬讛 谞讬砖讗转 讬转专 注诇讬讜 讛讘注诇 砖讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 讘讞讬讬讛

Abaye said: Come and hear a resolution from the following mishna (Ketubot 46b): A father has authority over his daughter with regard to her betrothal, whether it is through money, through a document, or through sexual intercourse. Likewise, a father has a right to items she has found, and to her earnings, and to effect the nullification of her vows, i.e., a father may nullify his daughter鈥檚 vows. And he accepts her bill of divorce on her behalf if she is divorced from betrothal before she becomes a grown woman. And although he inherits her property when she dies, e.g., property she inherited from her mother鈥檚 family, he does not enjoy the profits of her property during her lifetime. If the daughter married, the husband has more rights and obligations than her father had before the marriage, as he enjoys the profits of her property during her lifetime.

拽转谞讬 讘讬讗讛 讜拽转谞讬 谞讬砖讗转 讻讬 拽转谞讬 谞讬砖讗转 讗砖讗专讗

The mishna teaches that a man has rights to his daughter鈥檚 betrothal through sexual intercourse, and it subsequently teaches: If the daughter married. This indicates that intercourse effects only betrothal. The Gemara rejects this claim: When it teaches: If the daughter married, that is referring to the other modes mentioned here, i.e., betrothal by means of money or a document. In these cases there is a difference between betrothal and marriage, while it is possible that betrothal through intercourse effects marriage as well.

讗诪专 专讘讗 转讗 砖诪注 讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诪转拽讚砖转 讘讘讬讗讛 讜讗诐 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讬讘诐 拽谞讗讛 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜诪讟诪讗讛 讗转 讘讜注诇讛

Rava said: Come and hear a resolution from a baraita: A girl who is three years and one day old can be betrothed through intercourse, and if her yavam engaged in intercourse with her, he has acquired her. And if she is married, one is liable if he engages in intercourse with her, due to her status as a married woman. And if she is impure as a menstruating woman, she renders one who engages in intercourse with her ritually impure for seven days.

诇讟诪讗 诪砖讻讘 转讞转讜谉 讻注诇讬讜谉

And he renders impure the object upon which he lies like the upper one. One who engages in sexual intercourse with a menstruating woman renders the objects upon which he lies ritually impure even if he has no direct contact with them.

讜讗诐 谞讬砖讗转 诇讻讛谉 讗讜讻诇转 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讗诐 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讗讞讚 诪讻诇 注专讬讜转 砖讘转讜专讛 诪讜诪转讬谉 注诇 讬讚讛 讜讛讬讗 驻讟讜专讛 讜讗诐 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛驻住讜诇讬谉 驻住诇讛 诪谉 讛讻讛讜谞讛

And if she marries a priest she may partake of teruma from that point onward. And if one of those with whom sexual relations are forbidden by the Torah (see Leviticus, chapter 18) engages in intercourse with her, he is put to death due to his sin with her, and she is exempt from punishment as a minor. And if someone of unfit lineage, i.e., a man who would disqualify her from marrying a priest if he engaged in sexual intercourse with her, engages in intercourse with her, he has disqualified her from marrying into the priesthood. This concludes the baraita.

拽转谞讬 讘讬讗讛 讜拽转谞讬 谞讬砖讗转 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬 讛谞讬 谞砖讜讗讬谉 讚讻讛谉 谞讬谞讛讜 讗讜讻诇转 讘转专讜诪讛

The Gemara analyzes this source. It is taught in that baraita: She can be betrothed through sexual intercourse, and it is taught separately: And if she marries a priest. This indicates that intercourse does not effect marriage. The Gemara rejects this: This is what the baraita said: If this betrothal through intercourse is a marriage to a priest, she may partake of teruma. It is possible that there are not two separate stages here but a single action, as sexual intercourse effects marriage.

转讗 砖诪注 讜讻讘专 砖诇讞 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘讙 讘讙 讗爪诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讛 诇谞爪讬讘讬谉 砖诪注转讬 注诇讬讱 砖讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讗专讜住讛 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讗讜讻诇转 讘转专讜诪讛 砖诇讞 诇讜 讜讗转讛 讗讬 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讻谉 诪讜讞讝拽谞讬 讘讱 砖讗转讛 讘拽讬 讘讞讚专讬 转讜专讛 诇讚专讜砖 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讗讬 讗转讛 讬讜讚注

Come and hear a proof from a baraita: And Yo岣nan ben Bag Bag already sent a message to Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira in the city of Netzivin: I heard about you that you say that the daughter of a non-priest betrothed to a priest may partake of teruma. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira sent back this reply to him: And do you not say so? I know about you that you are an expert in many areas of Torah; do you not know how to teach halakhot based on an a fortiori inference?

讜诪讛 砖驻讞讛 讻谞注谞讬转 砖讗讬谉 讘讬讗转讛 诪讗讻讬诇转讛 讘转专讜诪讛 讻住驻讛 诪讗讻讬诇转讛 讘转专讜诪讛 讝讜 砖讘讬讗转讛 诪讗讻讬诇转讛 讘转专讜诪讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讻住驻讛 诪讗讻讬诇转讛 讘转专讜诪讛 讗讘诇 诪讛 讗注砖讛 砖讛专讬 讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讬谉 讗专讜住讛 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讗讜讻诇转 讘转专讜诪讛 注讚 砖转讻谞住 诇讞讜驻讛

The a fortiori inference is as follows: If in the case of a Canaanite maidservant, whose sexual intercourse with a priest does not allow her to partake of teruma, as she is not betrothed to him, her money, i.e., if a priest acquires her through money, allows her to partake of teruma, is it not logical with regard to this betrothed woman, whose sexual intercourse with a priest allows her to partake of teruma, that her betrothal money from the priest should allow her to partake of teruma? If this is indeed the case, the daughter of a non-priest betrothed to a priest should be permitted to partake of teruma. But what can I do, as the Sages said: By rabbinic law, the daughter of a non-priest betrothed to a priest may not partake of teruma until she enters the wedding canopy.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讘讘讬讗讛 砖注诇 讬讚讬 讞讜驻讛 讜讻住祝 砖注诇 讬讚讬 讞讜驻讛 讘转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪讬讻诇 讗讻诇讛

The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of the comparison between money and sexual intercourse? If it is referring to a case of sexual intercourse by means of a wedding canopy, i.e., after they are married, and betrothal through money where the marriage is then completed by means of a wedding canopy, in both cases she may partake of teruma even by rabbinic law, as she is a full-fledged married woman.

讜讗诇讗 讘讘讬讗讛 砖注诇 讬讚讬 讞讜驻讛 讜讻住祝 砖诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 讞讜驻讛 讛讻讗 转专转讬 讜讛讻讗 讞讚讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘讘讬讗讛 砖诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 讞讜驻讛 讜讻住祝 砖诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 讞讜驻讛

Or rather one could say that this comparison is referring to sexual intercourse by means of a wedding canopy, and betrothal through money not by means of a wedding canopy. If so, the a fortiori inference is not valid, as here, in the case of intercourse, there are two stages of acquisition, intercourse followed by the wedding canopy, and here, in the case of money, there is only one stage. Rather, is it not correct to say that the comparison between money and intercourse is referring to sexual intercourse not by means of a wedding canopy and also money not by means of a wedding canopy?

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 谞砖讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诇讬诪讗 诇讛 讘讬讗讛 诪讻住祝 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 拽讚讜砖讬谉 注讜砖讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗 讚驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗 讚诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛

Granted, if you say that intercourse by itself effects marriage, it is due to that reason that it is obvious to Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira that the mode of sexual intercourse is stronger than money, and allows her to partake of teruma. But if you say that sexual intercourse effects only betrothal, what is different here, in the case of betrothal through intercourse, that it is obvious to him that it allows her to partake of teruma, and what is different here, in the case of betrothal through money, that he is uncertain and must derive the matter through an a fortiori inference? In both cases she is only betrothed.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 讘讘讬讗讛 砖注诇 讬讚讬 讞讜驻讛 讜讻住祝 砖诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 讞讜驻讛 讜讚拽讗诪专转 讛讻讗 转专转讬 讜讛讻讗 讞讚讗 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讬讛讗 讗讬转讬讛

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Actually, I will say to you that he is speaking about sexual intercourse by means of a wedding canopy and money not by means of a wedding canopy. And as for that which you said in opposition to this a fortiori inference: Here there are two stages of acquisition, and here there is only one stage. In any event, there is a valid a fortiori inference.

讜讛讻讬 砖诇讞 诇讬讛 讜诪讛 砖驻讞讛 讻谞注谞讬转 砖讗讬谉 讘讬讗转讛 诪讗讻讬诇转讛 讘转专讜诪讛 讗驻讬诇讜 注诇 讬讚讬 讞讜驻讛 讻住驻讛 诪讗讻讬诇转讛 讘诇讗 讞讜驻讛 讝讜 砖讘讬讗转讛 诪讗讻讬诇转讛 讘转专讜诪讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讞讜驻讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讻住驻讛 诪讗讻讬诇转讛 讘转专讜诪讛 讘诇讗 讞讜驻讛

And this is what Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira sent him, i.e., his statement should be understood as follows: If a Canaanite maidservant, whose intercourse with a priest does not allow her to partake of teruma, even by means of a wedding canopy, and yet her money allows her to partake of teruma without the means of a wedding canopy, is it not logical with regard to this betrothed woman, whose intercourse with a priest allows her to partake of teruma by means of a wedding canopy, that her betrothal money from the priest should allow her to partake of teruma without the means of a wedding canopy?

讗讘诇 诪讛 讗注砖讛 砖讛专讬 讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讬谉 讗专讜住讛 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讗讜讻诇转 讘转专讜诪讛 注讚 砖转讻谞住 诇讞讜驻讛 诪砖讜诐 讚注讜诇讗

But what can I do, as the Sages said: By rabbinic law, the daughter of a non-priest betrothed to a priest may not partake of teruma until she enters the wedding canopy, due to the reason stated by Ulla. According to Ulla, there is a concern that she may feed her siblings or members of her family teruma while she is still living in her father鈥檚 house.

讜讘谉 讘讙 讘讙 讙讘讬 砖驻讞讛 讻谞注谞讬转 诇讗 砖讬讬专 讘拽谞讬谞讛 讛讻讗 砖讬讬专 讘拽谞讬谞讛

And ben Bag Bag explains why one cannot accept this a fortiori inference involving a Canaanite maidservant: With regard to a Canaanite maidservant who is purchased with money, the buyer does not leave out anything from her acquisition, i.e., he completes the purchase in full. Here, in the case of betrothal, he leaves out part of her acquisition, as the stage of marriage has yet to be performed. Therefore, these two cases are dissimilar.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讬驻砖讟 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 讚讗讻诇讛 讜诪讚专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讚砖诇讞 诇讬讛

Ravina said that by Torah law, it is obvious to Yo岣nan ben Bag Bag that she may partake of teruma also when she is betrothed to a priest through money alone, as she is acquired with his money. And the question that he sent him is referring to the halakha by rabbinic law.

讜讛讻讬 砖诇讞 诇讬讛 砖诪注转讬 注诇讬讱 砖讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讗专讜住讛 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讗讜讻诇转 讘转专讜诪讛 讜诇讗 讞讬讬砖转 诇住讬诪驻讜谉 砖诇讞 诇讬讛 讜讗转讛 讗讬 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讻谉 诪讜讞讝拽谞讬 讘讱 砖讗转讛 讘拽讬 讘讞讚专讬 转讜专讛 诇讚专讜砖 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讗讬 讗转讛 讬讜讚注

Ravina elaborates: And this is the question that he sent to him: I heard about you that you say that in practice the daughter of a non-priest betrothed to a priest may partake of teruma, and we are not concerned about an annulling factor [simfon], i.e., that he might find some blemish in her through which the betrothal would be considered retroactively invalid. If so, she would have eaten teruma when she was not permitted to do so. And it was with regard to this issue that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira sent to him: And do you not say this? I know about you that you are an expert in many areas of Torah; do you not know how to teach halakhot based on an a fortiori inference?

讜诪讛 砖驻讞讛 讻谞注谞讬转 砖讗讬谉 讘讬讗转讛 诪讗讻讬诇转讛 讘转专讜诪讛 讻住驻讛 诪讗讻讬诇转讛 讘转专讜诪讛 讜诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇住讬诪驻讜谉 讝讜 砖讘讬讗转讛 诪讗讻讬诇转讛 讘转专讜诪讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讻住驻讛 诪讗讻讬诇转讛 讘转专讜诪讛 讜诇讗 谞讬讞讜砖 诇住讬诪驻讜谉 讗讘诇 诪讛 讗注砖讛 砖讛专讬 讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗专讜住讛 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谞讛 讗讜讻诇转 讘转专讜诪讛

The a fortiori inference is as follows: If a Canaanite maidservant, whose engaging in intercourse with a priest does not allow her to partake of teruma, and yet her receiving purchase money allows her to partake of teruma, and we are not concerned about simfon, i.e., that the Canaanite maidservant may have some physical blemish that nullifies her purchase retroactively, is it not logical with regard to this betrothed woman, whose intercourse with a priest allows her to partake of teruma, that her receiving betrothal money from the priest should allow her to partake of teruma even before entering the wedding canopy, and we should not be concerned about simfon? But what can I do, as the Sages said: By rabbinic law the daughter of a non-priest betrothed to a priest may not partake of teruma

Scroll To Top