Kiddushin 10a (י.) — the Talmud in English

He said:

He answered:

Rabbi Zeira

answered:

Indeed, with regard to a betrothed maiden, there is no distinction between intercourse by the husband and intercourse by another. But there is a distinction between them with regard to a maiden who is not betrothed—

One who rapes or seduces a virgin maiden pays a fine of fifty shekels to her father. This law applies only to a virgin maiden, and not to one who has already engaged in intercourse.

And

Rabbi concedes with regard to the fine that

if ten men had intercourse with a virgin unnaturally, the law governing each one of them is the same as that governing one who has intercourse with a virgin naturally, and

all of them pay,

and all of them pay a fine [the reason for this will be explained shortly].

Therefore, the phrase “a woman who has had intercourse with a husband” is stated to teach that when she has a husband, she becomes one who has engaged in intercourse through him even if her husband had intercourse with her unnaturally. But through intercourse by another, while she is unmarried, she does not become one who has engaged in intercourse except through natural intercourse. And we raise an objection:

What is different with regard to execution,

that the law concerning intercourse with a maiden who is not betrothed is different from the law concerning the punishment of death for intercourse with a betrothed maiden?

That is, from where do we know that the biblical phrase “a woman who has had intercourse with a husband,” which teaches that even through unnatural intercourse she becomes one who has engaged in intercourse, applies only with regard to the punishment of death, and does not also apply with regard to the fine?

And we answer:

That case is different,

as the law of death is different, because

the verse says

concerning the punishment for one who rapes a betrothed virgin maiden [Deuteronomy 22:25–26]:

“The man who lay with her shall die, alone

and you shall do nothing to the maiden.”

The word “alone” is superfluous, since it is stated afterward, “and you shall do nothing to the maiden.” From this Rabbi learned that only one person who had intercourse with a betrothed virgin maiden is stoned, and not more than one.

Thus, if one person had intercourse with her while she was betrothed, even unnaturally, and became liable for stoning, from that point onward she is considered one who has engaged in intercourse, and one who has intercourse with her is executed by strangulation.

But only with regard to the punishment of death did the Torah reveal through a special exclusion, “alone,” that even through unnatural intercourse she becomes one who has engaged in intercourse, and from that point onward those who have intercourse with her are liable only for strangulation and not for stoning. But with regard to the fine of an unmarried woman, even after a man had intercourse with her unnaturally, she is still considered a virgin.

And we raise an objection against the Rabbis, who dispute Rabbi and hold that even with regard to the punishment of death by stoning, the maiden does not become one who has engaged in intercourse through unnatural intercourse by another:

And the Rabbis, this “

alone”—

what do they use it for,

what do they derive from it?

And we answer:

They require it for that which was taught

as follows; the verse is needed to teach us the law brought in the following beraita:

It is stated [Deuteronomy 22:22] concerning a man who had intercourse with a married woman:

“And both of them shall die.”

And this verse teaches that they are not executed

unless they are

both

equal as one,

that both are liable for punishment, fit to be punished by death. But an adult who has intercourse with a minor is exempt, since the minor is exempt, these are

the words of Rabbi Yashya.

But

Rabbi Yonatan says:

It is stated concerning one who rapes a betrothed maiden:

“The man who lay with her shall die, alone.”

The word “alone” teaches that even when she is a minor and is not fit to be liable for punishment, nevertheless the man who had intercourse with her dies, alone.

And the Rabbis, who dispute Rabbi, agree with Rabbi Yonatan that the word “alone” comes to teach that even an adult who has intercourse with a betrothed minor is stoned. Therefore, the word “alone” is not expounded to exclude from stoning one who had intercourse with the maiden unnaturally.

Up to this point, the Gemara dealt with clarifying the expositions according to Rabbi, who learned the law of betrothal through intercourse from the verse “and he has intercourse with her.”

Now the Gemara returns to discuss the words of Rabbi Yohanan above, who learned the law of betrothal through intercourse from the verse “a woman who has had intercourse with a husband.”

Rabbi expounds the verse “a woman who has had intercourse with a husband” to teach that only the husband renders her one who has engaged in intercourse, even if he had intercourse with her unnaturally, whereas another does not render her one who has engaged in intercourse through unnatural intercourse. But Rabbi Yohanan expounds this verse to teach the law of betrothal through intercourse.

And if so, this must be examined:

And Rabbi Yohanan, this reasoning—

from where does he derive it!?

From where do we learn, according to Rabbi Yohanan, that the husband renders her one who has engaged in intercourse unnaturally, whereas another does not?

And we answer: Although Rabbi Yohanan expounded the verse “a woman who has had intercourse with a husband” to teach the law of betrothal through intercourse, this matter can still be learned from it through an additional exposition—

for

if so,

if the verse indeed came only to teach the law of betrothal through intercourse,

the verse should have written,

it would have been appropriate for it to state:

“A woman who has had intercourse with a man”!

What

is the reason that the verse uses the expression

“a woman who has had intercourse with a husband”?—

To say that specifically through the husband does she become one who has engaged in intercourse through unnatural intercourse, and not through another.

And

derive from this that there are two.

We can learn two laws from the words of the verse: a. betrothal through intercourse; b. the husband renders her one who has engaged in intercourse unnaturally, but another does not.

Now the Gemara considers the case of one who betroths a woman through intercourse: at what stage of the intercourse does he acquire her as a wife?

They raised a dilemma,

the scholars in the beit-midrash were uncertain: Does

the beginning of intercourse acquire

her in betrothal,

or does the end of intercourse acquire her?

And there is

a practical difference

in this question with regard to two possibilities. The first is

for example, that he initiated intercourse with her,

meaning that he performed only the beginning of intercourse,

and

while intercourse was taking place she

extended her hand and accepted betrothal from

a

different

man, before he managed to complete intercourse with her.

If the beginning of intercourse acquires her, she is betrothed to the first man who had intercourse with her, since his betrothal took effect first, and the second man’s act of betrothal has no effect. But if we say that only completion of intercourse acquires her, she is betrothed to the second man, since his betrothal took effect before the first man completed intercourse with her.

Alternatively,

the second possibility is

with

regard to

a High Priest who acquires a virgin through intercourse.

Since it is stated in the Torah concerning the marriage of a High Priest [Leviticus 21:14]: “For he shall take a virgin from his people as a wife.” The verse teaches that a woman who has engaged in intercourse is forbidden for a High Priest to take as a wife, and even if the High Priest himself had intercourse with her before the betrothal, he is forbidden to take her as a wife.

However, the High Priest is permitted to marry her and have intercourse with her even after she has engaged in intercourse with him, if the first intercourse took place after the betrothal.

The question therefore arises whether a High Priest is permitted to betroth a woman through intercourse: If the beginning of intercourse acquires her, he is permitted to betroth a virgin through intercourse, since she becomes betrothed from the beginning of intercourse, and immediately becomes his wife. He may then continue the intercourse, because she is no longer rendered forbidden to him as one who has engaged in intercourse with himself; for at the moment he has intercourse with her, she immediately becomes his wife, and at that moment she was a virgin. But if we say that only the end of intercourse acquires her, he is forbidden to betroth her through intercourse. For from the moment of initial intercourse, her virginity is removed, and she becomes one who has engaged in intercourse without becoming his wife. Therefore, he may not complete the intercourse and betroth her at its end, since at the time he betroths her, at the end of intercourse, she is already forbidden to him as one who has engaged in intercourse with himself.

Therefore, the question arises:

What

is the point at which a woman is acquired by her husband if he betroths her through intercourse—at the beginning of intercourse or at its end?

Ameimar said in the name of Rava: Anyone who has intercourse with

a woman—

his intention is upon the completion of intercourse.

Therefore, the completion of intercourse acquires her, and not its beginning.

Accordingly, if she accepted betrothal from another man after the initial intercourse, she is betrothed to the second man.

Likewise, a High Priest is forbidden to betroth a woman through intercourse, since the initial intercourse, even when performed for the purpose of betrothal, does not acquire her. And when he betroths her at the time he completes intercourse, she is already one who has engaged in intercourse with himself as a result of the initial intercourse, which removed her virginity. Consequently, at the end of intercourse she is forbidden to him.

The Gemara brings another uncertainty concerning betrothal through intercourse:

They raised a dilemma,

the scholars in the beit-midrash were uncertain, concerning one who betroths a woman through intercourse:

Does

this intercourse,

which is an act of acquisition for betrothal through an act of marital intimacy [and is not an ordinary acquisition through money or a document], also

effect marriage,

does it

effect,

marriage as well, serving in place of the bridal canopy that follows betrothal through money or a document?

Or does it effect only

the acquisition of

betrothal,

does it

effect,

only betrothal, like acquisition through money or a document?

And there is

a practical difference

between these two possibilities in several matters:

A.

To inherit her.

For only after marriage does a husband inherit his married wife when she dies, whereas he does not inherit his betrothed.

B.

And to become ritually impure for her.

If a kohen’s wife dies, he may become ritually impure for her if she was his wife through marriage, but if she was only his betrothed, he may not become ritually impure for her.

C.

And to annul her vows.

After betrothal, the girl’s father and her betrothed annul her vows together, whereas after marriage, the husband alone annuls her vows.

If you say

that intercourse also

effects marriage,

then if she dies, the husband

inherits her and becomes ritually impure for her

if he is a kohen, and

annuls

her

vows

without the father.

And if you say

that intercourse only

effects betrothal,

then if she dies without having married, he

does not inherit her and does not become ritually impure for her

if he is a kohen, and

does not annul her vows

during her lifetime without her father.

Therefore, the question must be asked:

What

does intercourse effect—betrothal alone, or marriage as well?

Abaye said: Come and hear:

Come and hear a proof from a Mishna that intercourse effects betrothal alone:

As we learned in a Mishna [Ketubot 46b]:

The father is entitled with regard to his daughter

while she is a minor or a na’ara,

with regard to her betrothal.

.

For he has the authority to betroth her

with money,

and the money belongs to him.

He also has the authority to betroth her

with a document.

And

he has the authority to give her over for betrothal

through intercourse,

even against her will.

And he is entitled

the father

to her lost property, to the products of her labor, and to annulling her vows.

And

if she became betrothed but had not yet married, and had not yet reached majority, then if the betrothed man wished to divorce her, the father

receives her bill of divorce.

There is, however, a limitation on the father’s rights with regard to his daughter.

And

therefore, if the daughter inherited land from her mother’s father, it belongs to her completely, and the father

does not consume

even the

produce

of the land

during her lifetime,

although she is under his authority; she is not comparable to a married woman, whose property’s produce belongs to her husband.

Only if the daughter dies during her father’s lifetime does the father inherit the land from her.

And if the daughter

marries,

then

the husband has an advantage over him

the father:

the husband,

who acquires all the rights that the father has, has an additional right,

for

if his wife inherits land, the husband

consumes the produce

that grows there from the time she marries,

during her lifetime.

And certainly after her death, when he inherits the land itself, which then belongs to him, it is obvious that he consumes the produce of his own land.

This concludes the Mishna’s words in tractate Ketubot [46b].

From these words of the Mishna, it can be learned that intercourse effects betrothal alone and not marriage.

For

it teaches

at the beginning of the Mishna the betrothal through

intercourse.

And

afterward

it teaches, “she married.”

This implies that the betrothal through intercourse mentioned above does not grant the husband the right to consume the produce unless she marries him. It follows that intercourse effects betrothal alone.

The Gemara rejects Abaye’s proof: It is possible that intercourse effects marriage as well.

And

when it teaches “‘

she married’”—

it refers to the rest.

The statement we learned, “And if she married,” implying that an additional marriage is required apart from the initial betrothal, refers only to betrothal through money and a document. In the case of betrothal through intercourse, however, no additional marriage is required; the intercourse itself also effects the marriage canopy.

The question therefore returns: Does intercourse effect betrothal alone, or marriage as well?

Rava said: Come and hear:

Come and hear a proof from another Mishna that intercourse effects betrothal alone.

As we learned in tractate Niddah [44b]: Intercourse with a girl up to the age of three is not considered intercourse at all, and one who has intercourse with her is considered like one who “places a finger in the eye.” Once she has become

three years and one day old,

her intercourse is considered intercourse.

Therefore, she

can be betrothed through intercourse,

with the consent of her father.

And

likewise,

if

her husband died and

the levir had intercourse with her,

the

levir

her husband’s brother,

acquires her

through intercourse.

And

likewise, if her father accepted betrothal on her behalf, from that point onward all other men who have intercourse with her

are liable

to death

because she is a married woman.

And

likewise, if she was a menstruant, and a man had intercourse with her while she was a menstruant, she

renders the one who has intercourse with her ritually impure

according to the law of the ritual impurity of one who has intercourse with a menstruant, which is a greater degree of impurity than that of one who merely touches her.

One who touches a menstruant is ritually impure for only one day, and his impurity is a light impurity, as he does not render a person or vessels ritually impure. But one who has intercourse with a menstruant is ritually impure for seven days, as it is stated [Leviticus 15]: “And if a man lies with her at all, and her menstruation is upon him, he shall be ritually impure for seven days ”. His impurity is so severe that his impurity has the power—