Kiddushin 10aקידושין י׳ א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Kiddushin 10a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
10aי׳ א
1 א

אמר רבי זירא מודה רבי לענין קנס דכולהו משלמי מאי שנא מקטלא שאני התם דאמר קרא (דברים כב, כה) ומת האיש אשר שכב עמה לבדו

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: “Then the man only who lay with her shall die” (Deuteronomy 22:25), which indicates that only one man is executed for having sexual intercourse with a virgin, and no more.

2 ב

ורבנן האי לבדו מאי עבדי ליה מיבעי להו לכדתני' (דברים כב, כב) ומתו גם שניהם עד שיהיו שוין כאחד דברי ר' אושעיא רבי יונתן אומר ומת האיש אשר שכב עמה לבדו

The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, what do they do with this term “only”? The Gemara answers: They require it for that which is taught in a baraita. The verse states: “Then they shall both of them die” (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: “Then the man only who lay with her shall die,” indicates that in some cases only one of them is liable to receive the death penalty.

3 ג

ורבי יוחנן האי סברא מנא ליה אם כן נכתוב קרא בעולת איש מאי בעולת בעל ש"מ תרתי:

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yoḥanan, from where does he derive this conclusion that only a woman’s 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’al,” 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’s husband can render her a non-virgin by intercourse in an atypical manner.

4 ד

איבעיא להו תחילת ביאה קונה או סוף ביאה קונה נפקא מינה כגון שהערה בה ופשטה ידה וקבלה קדושין מאחר

§ 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’s betrothal is meaningless. If the end of sexual intercourse effects acquisition, she is betrothed to the other man.

5 ה

אי נמי לכהן גדול דקא קני בתולה בביאה מאי אמר אמימר משמיה דרבא כל הבועל דעתו על גמר ביאה:

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.

6 ו

איבעיא להו ביאה נשואין עושה או אירוסין עושה נפקא מינה ליורשה

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?

7 ז

וליטמא לה ולהפר נדריה אי אמרת נשואין עושה יורשה ומיטמא לה ומיפר נדריה ואי אמרת אירוסין עושה אינו יורשה ואינו מיטמא לה ואינו מיפר נדריה מאי

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’s 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?

8 ח

אמר אביי ת"ש האב זכאי בבתו בקדושיה בכסף בשטר ובביאה וזכאי במציאתה ובמעשה ידיה ובהפרת נדריה ומקבל את גיטה ואינו אוכל פירות בחייה נישאת יתר עליו הבעל שאוכל פירות בחייה

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’s 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’s 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.

9 ט

קתני ביאה וקתני נישאת כי קתני נישאת אשארא

The mishna teaches that a man has rights to his daughter’s 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.

10 י

אמר רבא תא שמע בת שלש שנים ויום אחד מתקדשת בביאה ואם בא עליה יבם קנאה וחייבין עליה משום אשת איש ומטמאה את בועלה

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.