Kiddushin 10a — the Talmud in English

He said

he answered

Rabbi Zeira

an answer:

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

One who violates or seduces a virgin maiden pays a fine of fifty shekels to her father. And this law was stated only with regard to a virgin maiden, and not with regard to one who has had intercourse.

And

Rabbi concedes with regard to the fine that

ten men who had intercourse with a virgin unnaturally, the law of each one of them is like the law of one who had intercourse with the virgin, and

all of them pay,

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

And therefore it was stated, “one who has had intercourse with a husband,” to say that when she has a husband, she becomes “one who has had 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 had intercourse except through natural intercourse. And we object:

What is different from the case of execution,

why is the law of the fine for intercourse with a maiden who is not betrothed different from the law of the death penalty for intercourse with a betrothed maiden?

That is, from where do we know that the words of the verse, “one who has had intercourse with a husband,” which teach that even through unnatural intercourse she becomes one who has had intercourse, refer only to the death penalty, and do not also refer to the matter of the fine?

And we answer:

That case is different,

for the law of death is different, because

the verse says

with regard to the punishment of one who violates a betrothed virgin maiden [Deuteronomy 22:25–26]:

“And the man who lay with her shall die, alone

and to the maiden you shall do nothing.”

The word “alone” is superfluous, for it is stated afterward, “and to the maiden you shall do nothing.” And from this Rabbi learned that only one person who had intercourse with a betrothed virgin maiden is stoned, and no more.

And from here, if one had intercourse with her while she was betrothed, even unnaturally, and became liable to the death penalty of stoning, from this point onward she is considered one who has had intercourse, and one who has intercourse with her is executed by strangulation.

However, only with regard to the death penalty did the Torah reveal, through a special exclusion, “alone,” that even through unnatural intercourse she becomes one who has had intercourse, and from now on they are not liable to stoning for her, but to strangulation. But with regard to the fine for an unmarried woman, even after a person had intercourse with her unnaturally, she is still considered a virgin.

And we object to the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi and hold that even with regard to the death penalty of stoning, the maiden does not become one who has had intercourse through unnatural intercourse by another:

And as for the Rabbis, this

“alone”—

what do they do with it,

what do they expound from it?

And we answer:

They need it for that which was taught,

the verse is needed to make known the law brought in the following beraita:

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

“And both of them shall die.”

And this verse teaches that they are not executed

until they are

both

equal as one.

That both of them must be liable to punishment, fit to be punished by death. But an adult who had intercourse with a minor is exempt, since the minor is exempt, these are

the words of Rabbi Yoshiya.

But

Rabbi Yonatan says:

It is stated with regard to one who violates a betrothed maiden:

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

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

And the Rabbis, who disagreed with Rabbi, hold in accordance with Rabbi Yonatan, that the word “alone” comes to teach that even an adult who had intercourse with a betrothed minor is stoned. Therefore the word “alone” is not expounded to exclude from the punishment of stoning one who had intercourse with the maiden who had been subjected to unnatural intercourse.

Until here the Gemara dealt with clarifying the expositions according to Rabbi, who learned the law of betrothal through intercourse from “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 “one who has had intercourse with a husband.”

Rabbi expounds from the verse “one who has had intercourse with a husband” that only the husband makes her one who has had intercourse even if he had intercourse with her unnaturally, whereas another does not make her one who has had intercourse through unnatural intercourse. But Rabbi Yohanan expounds this verse to teach about betrothal through intercourse.

And if so, this must be examined:

And Rabbi Yohanan, this reasoning—

from where does he have it!?

From where do we learn, according to Rabbi Yohanan, that the husband makes her one who has had intercourse unnaturally, but another does not?

And we answer: Even though Rabbi Yohanan expounded the verse “one who has had intercourse with a husband” to teach about betrothal through intercourse, it is still possible to learn this matter from it by means of an additional exposition—

for

if so,

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

let the verse write,

it should have written,

“one who has had intercourse with a man”!

Why,

why did the verse use the wording

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

to say that specifically through the husband does she become one who has had intercourse through unnatural intercourse, and not through another.

And

derive from it two matters.

We have to learn from the words of the verse both laws: a. betrothal through intercourse; b. the husband makes her one who has had intercourse unnaturally, but another does not.

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

They raised a problem,

they were uncertain in the beit-midrash: whether

the beginning of intercourse acquires

her through betrothal,

or does the end of intercourse acquire her?

And there is

a practical consequence

in this question with regard to two possibilities: the first,

for example, he initiated intercourse with her,

he performed only the beginning of intercourse with her,

and

during the intercourse she

extended her hand and accepted betrothal from

a

different

man, before he managed to complete his intercourse with her.

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

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 only a virgin from his people shall he take as a wife.” The verse teaches that a woman who has had 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 had intercourse with him, if the first intercourse was after the betrothal.

And now there is a doubt: is a High Priest permitted to betroth a woman through intercourse: if the beginning of intercourse acquires her, he is permitted to betroth a virgin through intercourse, since from the beginning of the intercourse she becomes betrothed, and immediately she is his wife, and he is permitted to continue the intercourse, for she is no longer forbidden to him on account of “one who has had intercourse with himself,” since at the same moment that 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 already from the time of the initiation, her virginity is removed, and she becomes one who has had intercourse without becoming his wife. Therefore he is forbidden to complete his intercourse and betroth her at the end of the intercourse, for at the time that he betroths her, at the end of the intercourse, she is already forbidden to him on account of “one who has had intercourse with himself.”

And therefore there is a doubt:

What,

when is the woman acquired by her husband if he betroths her through betrothal by intercourse, at the beginning of the intercourse or at its end?

Amemar said in the name of Rava: Everyone who has intercourse

with a

woman, his intention is directed to the completion of intercourse.

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

And accordingly, if she accepted betrothal from another man after the initiation, she is betrothed to the second.

Likewise, a High Priest is forbidden to betroth a woman through intercourse, since the initiation, even when it is performed for the purpose of betrothal, does not acquire her. And when he betroths her at the time that he completes his intercourse, she is already “one who has had intercourse with himself” on account of the initiation, which removed her virginity. It follows that at the end of the intercourse she is forbidden to him.

And the Gemara brings an additional doubt concerning betrothal through intercourse:

They raised a problem,

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

Whether

this intercourse,

which is an acquisition of betrothal by means of an act of marital intercourse [and it is not an ordinary acquisition through money or a document], also

marriage

it

effects,

that it also serves in place of the bridal canopy performed after betrothal through money or a document.

Or

only an acquisition of

betrothal

does it

effect,

like an acquisition through money and like a document?

And there is

a practical difference

from this question in several matters:

a.

To inherit her.

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

b.

And to become impure for her.

If a kohen's wife dies, if she was his wife through marriage, he is permitted to become impure for her; but if she was only his betrothed, he is forbidden to become impure for her.

c.

And to annul her vows.

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

If you say

that intercourse also

effects marriage,

then if she dies, the husband

inherits her and becomes impure for her

if he is a kohen,

and annuls

her

vows

without the father.

And if you say

that intercourse only

effects betrothal,

if she dies without marriage, he

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

if he is a kohen,

and does not annul her vows

during her lifetime without her father.

And therefore one must ask:

What is it?

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:

For we learned in the Mishna [Ketubot 46b]:

The father is entitled with regard to his daughter,

while she is a minor or a young woman,

through her betrothals.

.

For it is in his power to betroth her

with money,

and the money will belong to him.

And it is in his power to betroth her also

with a document.

And

it is in his power to deliver her for betrothal

through intercourse,

even against her will.

And he is entitled

the father

to her lost object, to the product of her hands, and to the annulment of her vows.

And

if she became betrothed but was still not married, and had not reached maturity, then if the betrothed man wished to divorce her, the father

receives her bill of divorce.

But there is 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 entirely to her, and the father

does not consume

even the

produce

of the land

during her lifetime,

despite the fact that she is under his authority, and she is not comparable to a married woman, whose property produce belongs to her husband.

And 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

[over the father]:

the husband,

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

that

if his wife inherits land, the husband

consumes the produce

that grew there from the time she married,

during her lifetime.

And all the more so after her death, when he inherits the land itself, and it is his, and it is obvious that he consumes the produce from his own land.

Thus far are the words of the Mishna in tractate Ketubot [46b].

And from these words of the Mishna, it can be learned that intercourse effects kiddushin alone, and not marriage.

For

it teaches

at the beginning of the Mishna, the kiddushin of

intercourse.

And

afterward

it teaches, “she married.”

This implies that the kiddushin through intercourse mentioned above does not grant the husband the right to consume the produce unless she marries him. And from here, intercourse effects betrothal alone.

And 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.

What we learned, "And if she marries," implying that another marriage is required in addition to the initial kiddushin, refers only to kiddushin with money and a document. But in fact, with kiddushin through intercourse, another marriage is not required, and the intercourse itself effects the marriage canopy of marriage as well.

And the question 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.

For we learned in tractate Niddah [44b]: A girl up to the age of three, her intercourse is not considered intercourse at all, and one who has intercourse with her is considered as "placing a finger in the eye." But once she has become

three years and one day old,

her intercourse is called intercourse.

And therefore, she is

betrothed through intercourse,

with the father's consent.

And

likewise,

if

her husband died, and

the yavam had intercourse with her,

the

yavam

[her husband's brother],

acquired her

through intercourse.

And

likewise, if her father accepted kiddushin for her, from that point onward all other men who have intercourse with her

are liable

for death

because of a married woman.

And

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

renders the one who has intercourse with her impure

according to the law of the impurity of one who has intercourse with a menstruant, in which there is an additional impurity greater than that of one who touches her.

For one who touches a menstruant is impure for only one day, and his impurity is a light impurity, for he does not render a person or vessels impure. But one who has intercourse with a menstruant is impure for seven days, as it is stated [Leviticus 15]: "And if a man lies with her at all, and her menstruation shall be upon him, and he shall be impure for seven days ".