Kiddushin 10bקידושין י׳ ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Kiddushin 10b"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
10bי׳ ב

לטמא משכב תחתון כעליון

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.

ואם נישאת לכהן אוכלת בתרומה ואם בא עליה אחד מכל עריות שבתורה מומתין על ידה והיא פטורה ואם בא עליה אחד מן הפסולין פסלה מן הכהונה

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.

קתני ביאה וקתני נישאת הכי קאמר אי הני נשואין דכהן נינהו אוכלת בתרומה

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.

תא שמע וכבר שלח יוחנן בן בג בג אצל רבי יהודה בן בתירה לנציבין שמעתי עליך שאתה אומר ארוסה בת ישראל אוכלת בתרומה שלח לו ואתה אי אתה אומר כן מוחזקני בך שאתה בקי בחדרי תורה לדרוש בקל וחומר אי אתה יודע

Come and hear a proof from a baraita: And Yoḥanan 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?

ומה שפחה כנענית שאין ביאתה מאכילתה בתרומה כספה מאכילתה בתרומה זו שביאתה מאכילתה בתרומה אינו דין שכספה מאכילתה בתרומה אבל מה אעשה שהרי אמרו חכמים אין ארוסה בת ישראל אוכלת בתרומה עד שתכנס לחופה

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.

היכי דמי אי בביאה שעל ידי חופה וכסף שעל ידי חופה בתרוייהו מיכל אכלה

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.

ואלא בביאה שעל ידי חופה וכסף שלא על ידי חופה הכא תרתי והכא חדא אלא לאו בביאה שלא על ידי חופה וכסף שלא על ידי חופה

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?

אי אמרת בשלמא נשואין עושה משום הכי פשיטא ליה דאלימא לה ביאה מכסף אלא אי אמרת קדושין עושה מאי שנא הכא דפשיטא ליה ומאי שנא הכא דמספקא ליה

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.

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק לעולם אימא לך בביאה שעל ידי חופה וכסף שלא ע"י חופה ודקאמרת הכא תרתי והכא חדא קל וחומר מיהא איתיה

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak 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.

והכי שלח ליה ומה שפחה כנענית שאין ביאתה מאכילתה בתרומה אפילו על ידי חופה כספה מאכילתה בלא חופה זו שביאתה מאכילתה בתרומה על ידי חופה אינו דין שכספה מאכילתה בתרומה בלא חופה

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?

אבל מה אעשה שהרי אמרו חכמים אין ארוסה בת ישראל אוכלת בתרומה עד שתכנס לחופה משום דעולא

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’s house.

ובן בג בג גבי שפחה כנענית לא שייר בקנינה הכא שייר בקנינה

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.

רבינא אמר מדאורייתא מיפשט פשיטא ליה דאכלה ומדרבנן הוא דשלח ליה

Ravina said that by Torah law, it is obvious to Yoḥanan 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.

והכי שלח ליה שמעתי עליך שאתה אומר ארוסה בת ישראל אוכלת בתרומה ולא חיישת לסימפון שלח ליה ואתה אי אתה אומר כן מוחזקני בך שאתה בקי בחדרי תורה לדרוש בקל וחומר אי אתה יודע

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?

ומה שפחה כנענית שאין ביאתה מאכילתה בתרומה כספה מאכילתה בתרומה ולא חיישינן לסימפון זו שביאתה מאכילתה בתרומה אינו דין שכספה מאכילתה בתרומה ולא ניחוש לסימפון אבל מה אעשה שהרי אמרו חכמים ארוסה בת ישראל אינה אוכלת בתרומה

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