Kiddushin 10b — the Talmud in English

to render the lower bedding impure like the upper bedding,

as will be explained below:

A. A woman who is impure with the impurity of a niddah renders the bedding upon which she lies, or the seat upon which she sits, with severe impurity. That is, the seat or bedding of the niddah renders even a person and vessels that touch them impure.

B. And even if the niddah was sitting or lying upon ten mattresses, one on top of the other, all of them become impure with the impurity of “bedding” or “seat,” and become an av ha-tumah, and they render even a person and vessels impure, and all the more so foods and liquids.

C. A person who has intercourse with a niddah also becomes impure, and he too renders the ten mattresses beneath him impure, except that the impurity of the mattresses is lighter than that of the niddah’s own seat, and they are impure only like the “upper garment of a zav.” That is, like a garment that the zav carries above himself, which becomes impure only with the impurity of a “offspring of impurity” [also called “first-degree impurity”], and has the power to render foods and liquids impure only, but not a person or vessels.

D. A woman who is three years and one day old: her intercourse is intercourse.

Therefore, if she was a niddah, a person who had intercourse with her becomes impure, as stated above, with the impurity of one who has intercourse with a niddah, who is impure for seven days, and his impurity is severe, for he is impure by virtue of being an “av ha-tumah.”

And as stated, his impurity differs from the impurity of the niddah herself, in that he renders the mattresses upon which he lies impure with light impurity בלבד, “to render the lower bedding,” which is beneath the ten mattresses, “like the upper,” like the garment that is above the zav, which is impure only by virtue of being an offspring of impurity, and not with the impurity of an av ha-tumah [with which the bedding beneath the niddah is impure].

And

likewise, one who is three years and one day old,

if she married a kohen, she eats teruma,

as is the law of a kohen’s wife.

But if she is younger than three years and one day, her marriage is not a marriage, since her intercourse is not intercourse.

And

likewise,

if one of all

the

forbidden relations in the Torah had intercourse with her, they are executed on her account,

since her intercourse is intercourse.

And

however

she—

is exempt!

For minors are not subject to punishment.

And

likewise,

if

she is a daughter of a kohen, and

one of

those disqualified

for the priesthood had intercourse with her [such as: a gentile, a slave, a netin, a mamzer, or a chalal],

he disqualified her

through his intercourse

from the priesthood,

from marrying a kohen. And from eating teruma of her father’s household, if she is the daughter of a kohen.

Thus far are the words of the Mishna in Tractate Niddah that Rava brought.

Rava now proves from these words of the Mishna that intercourse effects betrothal only and not marriage:

It teaches,

we learned at the beginning of the Mishna: a woman who is three years and one day old becomes betrothed through

intercourse. And it teaches

later in the Mishna: and if she

married

a kohen, she eats teruma.

And it implies that even if she became betrothed through intercourse [and not through money or a document], as we learned in the first clause, she does not eat teruma until she marries. And it is proven that intercourse effects betrothal only, and not marriage!

The Gemara rejects Rava’s proof, for it is possible to interpret the words of the Mishna differently:

This is what he is saying,

the tannai in that Mishna:

A. A woman who is three years and one day old becomes betrothed through intercourse, and the intercourse is like marriage.

B.

If these are marriages, that are of a kohen,

if those marriages that were effected through betrothal by intercourse [which, as stated, are also marriage] were marriages to a kohen, she

eats teruma.

And since it is possible to interpret the words of that Mishna as referring to marriage through betrothal by intercourse to a kohen, the question returns: does intercourse effect betrothal only, or also marriage?

Come and hear

a proof from a beraita that intercourse also effects marriage:

We learned in a beraita:

And Yohanan ben Bag Bag had already sent to Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira at Netzivin

a question:

I have heard about you, that you say: a betrothed daughter of an Israelite

who became betrothed to a kohen

eats teruma

even though she has not married. And did you indeed say so?!

He sent him

Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira sent Ben Bag Bag an answer through a messenger:

And you,

do you

not say so?!

For

I consider you established as one who is expert in the chambers of Torah.

And if so, is it possible that

you do not know how to expound by means of a kal va-chomer?!

For it is possible to expound by means of a kal va-chomer that a daughter of an Israelite who became betrothed to a kohen eats teruma—

And as for a Canaanite maidservant, who,

if the kohen did not acquire her with money,

his intercourse

with her

enables her to eat teruma.

But if she was acquired by the kohen with money,

her money,

with which she is acquired,

enables her to eat teruma.

For it is stated [Leviticus 22] concerning eating teruma: “The acquisition of his money [of the kohen], he shall eat of it.”

And it is proven that the power of acquisition through money is greater than the power of acquisition through intercourse with regard to enabling one to eat teruma.

If so,

this one,

a kohen’s wife,

whose intercourse enables her to eat teruma,

as will be explained below —

Is it not the law that her money,

the money with which she is acquired,

enables her to eat teruma,

even though she has not entered chuppa?!

For the power of acquisition through money is greater than the power of intercourse with regard to enabling one to eat teruma! Therefore, by Torah law, a daughter of an Israelite who became betrothed to a kohen does eat teruma, even though she has not entered chuppa.

But what can I do, for the Sages said: a betrothed daughter of an Israelite does not eat teruma

by rabbinic ordinance,

until she enters chuppa.

Thus far are the words of the beraita.

And in order to prove from here that intercourse effects marriage, the Gemara discusses the words of the beraita:

Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira proved from the fact that intercourse enables the woman to eat teruma that the money of betrothal also enables her to eat teruma. And it must be asked:

What are the circumstances,

in what manner did Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira prove that a kohen’s acquisition through money enables a daughter of an Israelite to eat teruma, similar to the intercourse that the kohen performs?

If,

if you say that it is referring

to intercourse through chuppa,

such as when she entered chuppa, and afterward the kohen had intercourse with her.

And

in the same manner it is also referring to

money through

a chuppa.

It is impossible to say so.

For if the woman entered chuppa after the acquisition of betrothal, then

in both cases she eats,

in both of them, whether through money or through intercourse, the woman eats once she enters chuppa, and even by rabbinic ordinance!

And why did Ben Beteira say, “But what can I do, for the Sages said: a betrothed daughter of an Israelite does not eat teruma until she enters chuppa”?

But she indeed entered chuppa, and it is fitting that she should eat teruma!

Rather,

perhaps you will say that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira spoke

of intercourse that

enables her to eat teruma

through

her having already entered

chuppa, and

from this he learned concerning

money

that enables her to eat teruma even

without

chuppa.

This too cannot be said! For

here,

with intercourse, there are

two, and

whereas

here,

with acquisition through money, there is only

one!

That is, this intercourse enables her to eat teruma through the combination of two acquisitions: the intercourse itself and the chuppa.

Whereas concerning money, it refers to only one acquisition!

And if so, how is it possible to learn that money enables her to eat through only one acquisition from such intercourse, which enables her to eat only through two acquisitions?

Rather, is it not

necessarily that Ben Beteira spoke of

intercourse without chuppa,

which is sufficient by itself to enable her to eat teruma,

and

from this he learned concerning

money,

that it too enables her to eat

without chuppa.

And in this they are equal: they enable her to eat through one acquisition.

And the Sages decreed and said: the woman does not eat through them until she enters chuppa.

And if so, it is possible to prove from here that intercourse effects marriage:

For

if you say that,

the words of the beraita are understandable if you say that intercourse

effects marriage.

For since intercourse effects marriage, whereas money effects only betrothal,

for that reason it was obvious to him that intercourse is stronger for her than money.

Therefore it was obvious to Ben Beteira that intercourse is preferable to money, and there is no doubt that it enables her to eat teruma. For it is stated concerning teruma: “Every pure person in your house shall eat it.” And the Sages expounded from here that a married woman eats teruma, because she is in her husband’s house. And since intercourse effects marriage, it certainly enables her to eat teruma.

Rather,

but

if you say

that intercourse

alone

is

effective, then this is difficult:

then this is difficult:

What is different here,

what is different and distinctive about intercourse,

that it is obvious to him

to Rabbi Judah ben Beteira that it causes her to eat teruma.

And what is different here,

what is different and distinctive about money,

that it is doubtful to him

whether it effects the acquisition, until he needed to learn it from intercourse?

Rather, it is necessarily necessary to prove from the beraita that intercourse effects marriage.

And we reject the proof:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: I will always say

say

to you

that it is speaking

of intercourse

that causes her to eat

by means of chuppa, and

from here ben Beteira learned that

money

causes her to eat

without means of chuppa.

But we raised this difficulty against it: Is it possible to learn that money by itself causes her to eat, from intercourse that causes her to eat only through two things [a. intercourse, b. chuppa]?!

And Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak answers this:

And as for what you say, here two and here one,

and concerning what you asked: after all, intercourse causes her to eat through two acquisitions, and how is it possible to learn from here that money will cause her to eat through one acquisition? The answer is:

A kal va-chomer, at any rate, exists.

Nevertheless, it is possible to learn by a kal va-chomer that money will cause her to eat even without chuppa. As follows:

And thus he sent to him,

and this is how ben Beteira sent to ben Bag Bag:

And as for a Canaanite maidservant, which

if the priest did not acquire her with money but had intercourse with her, then

her intercourse does not cause her to eat teruma even through chuppa,

and nevertheless

her money causes her to eat

teruma

without chuppa.

And from here it follows that the power of money without chuppa is greater than the power of intercourse and chuppa together.

And if so,

this one,

a priest’s wife,

whose intercourse causes her to eat teruma through

entering

chuppa,

and is it not

a matter of logical inference

that it should be said

that her money causes her to eat teruma

even

without chuppa?!

For the power of money without chuppa is greater than the power of intercourse and chuppa together!

And ben Beteira added and said:

But what can I do?

For the Sages said: A betrothed Israelite woman does not eat teruma until she enters chuppa, because of

the decree

of

mentioned

by Ulla

above [5a]: Since the betrothed woman is in her father’s house, there is concern lest they pour her a cup of wine of teruma in her father’s house, and she give it to her brothers and sisters to drink, while they are forbidden to eat teruma, for they are not priests.

And accordingly, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak also explains the reason of ben Bag Bag, from whose words in the beraita it appears that he did not expound this kal va-chomer. In his view, a betrothed woman does not eat teruma even by Torah law:

And ben Bag Bag

holds that it cannot be proved from a Canaanite maidservant that the power of the money of kiddushin by itself is greater than the power of intercourse and chuppa together, since

with regard to a Canaanite maidservant,

when he acquired her with money, he

left nothing in her acquisition

and she is entirely his.

But

here,

with a woman acquired with money, he

left something in her acquisition.

For she has still not entered his domain completely, to inherit from her and to become impure on account of her, until she enters chuppa.

And therefore, one cannot learn the power of the money of kiddushin by itself from the money of the Canaanite maidservant.

Ravina disputes Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, and holds that it did not occur to ben Beteira to learn that money would cause her to eat by itself from intercourse that causes her to eat only in conjunction with chuppa.

And therefore,

Ravina said:

For another reason, it cannot be proved from ben Beteira’s words that intercourse effects marriage:

Even ben Bag Bag, who held that a betrothed woman does not eat teruma,

by Torah law it is entirely obvious to him that she eats

from the time of the betrothal, whether she was betrothed through intercourse or whether she was betrothed through money. And therefore, it cannot be proved from here that intercourse effects marriage. For even if it effects only betrothal, she then eats teruma.

And

only with regard to the prohibition

by rabbinic law, he sent to him

ben Beteira.

And thus

and so

he sent to him:

I, ben Bag Bag, hold that an Israelite woman who was betrothed to a priest with money or with a document does not eat teruma as long as she has not entered chuppa, because there is concern lest they find in her a “simpon,” that is, a defect, and then her kiddushin is retroactively void, because it became clear that they were mistaken kiddushin [that the husband did not betroth her on that condition]. And if a betrothed Israelite woman were to eat teruma, it would turn out that ultimately it became clear that she had transgressed a prohibition through her eating, for her kiddushin had been mistaken kiddushin.

And therefore the Sages said that a betrothed Israelite woman who was betrothed with money or with a document does not eat teruma until she enters chuppa, and once she has entered chuppa there is no concern lest they find a defect in her and the kiddushin be nullified, because it is the way of a person to have the woman examined by his female relatives before the chuppa, to see whether she has a defect, and even if it is found that she had a defect, certainly he knew of it and agreed to marry her on that condition, and his kiddushin is not mistaken kiddushin.

And

I have heard about you, that you

ben Beteira

say: An Israelite betrothed woman

who was betrothed with money or with a document

eats teruma

even by rabbinic law.

And you do not take the simpon into consideration

for the defect.

Did you say so?!

He sent to him

ben Beteira:

And you,

is it that you

do you not say so?!

After all,

I hold you to be an expert in the innermost chambers of Torah,

and is it that

you do not know how to expound by a kal va-chomer?!

But surely it should be proved by a kal va-chomer that even a betrothed woman who was betrothed with money or with a document eats teruma—

for there is no doubt that you too, ben Bag Bag, agree that a woman who was betrothed to a priest through intercourse eats teruma even though she has not entered chuppa. And there is no concern lest a defect be found in her that would nullify the kiddushin, because no person betroths a woman through intercourse before he examines whether she has a defect.

And therefore, even if a defect is found in her, the kiddushin is not void, for the husband knew of it, and despite everything he betrothed her. And these are not mistaken kiddushin.

And accordingly, it should be learned by a kal va-chomer that a woman who was betrothed to a priest with money should eat teruma even by rabbinic law, and we do not take the simpon into consideration:

And as for a Canaanite maidservant, whose intercourse does not

cause the priest

to cause her to eat teruma,

and nevertheless

her money

causes her to eat teruma, and we do not take the simpon into consideration,

and we are not concerned lest a defect be found in her and her acquisition be nullified because it was a mistaken sale.

If so,

this one,

a priest’s wife,

whose intercourse causes her to eat teruma

even if she has not entered chuppa, and it follows that the power of her eating teruma is greater than the power of a Canaanite maidservant, who does not eat through intercourse—

and is it not

a matter of logical inference

to say

that her money causes her to eat teruma

just as we found with a Canaanite maidservant,

and we should not take the simpon into consideration?!