Kiddushin 10b (י:) — 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 menstruant renders the bedding upon which she lies, or the seat upon which she sits, severely impure. That is, the seat or bedding of a menstruant renders even a person or utensils that touch them impure.

b. And even if the menstruant sits or lies upon ten mattresses, one atop the other, all of them become impure with the impurity of mishkav or moshav, become a primary source of impurity, and render even a person or utensils impure—and certainly food and drink.

c. A man who has intercourse with a menstruant also becomes impure, and he likewise renders the ten mattresses beneath him impure. However, the impurity of the mattresses is less severe than that of the menstruant’s own seat, and they are impure only like the “upper object of a zav.” That is, like a garment that a zav carries above himself, which becomes impure only with the impurity of a secondary derivative of impurity [also called a first-degree source], and can render only food and drink impure, but not a person or utensils.

d. With regard to a girl who is three years and one day old, intercourse with her is considered intercourse.

Therefore, if she was a menstruant, a man who had intercourse with her becomes impure, as stated above, with the impurity of one who has intercourse with a menstruant. He is impure for seven days, and his impurity is severe, as he has the status of a primary source of impurity.

As stated, his impurity differs from the impurity of the menstruant herself, in that he renders the mattresses upon which he lies impure only with a lesser impurity: “to render the lower bedding,” beneath the ten mattresses, “like the upper bedding,” like a garment above a zav, which is impure only as a secondary derivative of impurity and not with the impurity of a primary source [with which the bedding beneath a menstruant is impure].

And

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

if she married a kohen, she eats teruma,

as the wife of a kohen is entitled to do.

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

And

likewise,

if one of all

the

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

since intercourse with her is considered 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 the

men disqualified

for the priesthood has intercourse with her [such as a gentile, slave, natin, mamzer, or ḥalal],

he disqualifies her

through his intercourse

from the priesthood,

so that she may not marry a kohen. And she is barred from eating the teruma of her father’s household, if she is a kohenet.

This concludes the words of the Mishna in tractate Niddah that Rava cited.

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 girl who is three years and one day old is betrothed through

intercourse. And it teaches

later in the Mishna: If she

married

a kohen, she eats teruma.

This implies that even if she was 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. Thus it is proven that intercourse effects betrothal alone, and not marriage!

The Gemara rejects Rava’s proof, since the words of the Mishna can be interpreted differently:

This is what

the tanna in that Mishna

said: a. A girl who is three years and one day old is betrothed through intercourse, and that intercourse has the status of marriage. b.

If

these are marriages, and they are marriages to a kohen,

if those marriages effected through betrothal by intercourse [which, as stated, also have the status of marriage] were marriages to a kohen, she

eats teruma.

Since the words of that Mishna can be interpreted as referring to marriage effected through betrothal by intercourse to a kohen, the question returns: Does intercourse effect betrothal alone, or does it also effect marriage?

Come and hear

a proof from a beraita that intercourse also effects marriage:

We learned in a beraita:

And Yoḥanan ben Bag Bag had already sent to Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira in Netzivin

a question:

I have heard concerning you that you say: An Israelite woman who is betrothed

to a kohen

eats teruma

even though she has not married. Did you indeed say this?!

He sent him

Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira’s reply to Ben Bag Bag by means of a messenger:

And you,

do

you not say so?!

After all,

I am confident that you are expert in the innermost chambers of Torah.

If so, is it possible that

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

It can be derived by means of a kal va-chomer that an Israelite woman betrothed to a kohen eats teruma—

And as for a Canaanite maidservant, who,

if the kohen did not acquire her with money,

her intercourse

with her by the kohen

does not enable her to eat teruma.

But if he acquired her for 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: “He is an acquisition of his money [of the kohen]; he may eat of it.”

It is thus 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 woman,

the wife of a kohen,

whom intercourse enables to eat teruma,

as will be explained below—

Is it not logically necessary that her money,

the money with which she is acquired,

enables her to eat teruma,

even though she has not entered ḥuppa?!

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, an Israelite woman betrothed to a kohen does indeed eat teruma even though she has not entered ḥuppa.

But what can I do, since the Sages said: An Israelite woman who is betrothed does not eat teruma

by rabbinic decree

until she enters ḥuppa.

This concludes the words of the beraita.

In order to prove from here that intercourse effects marriage, the Gemara analyzes the words of the beraita:

Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira proved from the fact that intercourse enables a woman to eat teruma that the money of betrothal likewise enables an Israelite woman to eat teruma. The question arises:

What are the circumstances

under which Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira proved that acquisition through money by a kohen enables an Israelite woman to eat teruma, analogous to the intercourse performed by the kohen?

If

you say that the reference is

to intercourse accompanied by ḥuppa,

for example, she entered ḥuppa, and afterward the kohen had intercourse with her—

and

the reference to money is likewise to

money accompanied by

ḥuppa.

It cannot be said so.

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

in both cases she eats,

in both cases—whether through money or through intercourse—the woman eats once she enters ḥuppa, even by rabbinic law!

Why, then, did Ben Beteira say, “But what can I do, since the Sages said: An Israelite woman who is betrothed does not eat teruma until she enters ḥuppa”?

After all, the case is one in which she did enter ḥuppa, and she should properly eat teruma!

Rather,

perhaps you will say that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira was referring

to intercourse that

enables her to eat teruma

by means of

her having already entered

ḥuppa, and

from this he derived with regard to

money

that it enables her to eat teruma even

without

ḥuppa.

This, too, cannot be said! For

here,

in the case of intercourse, there are

two factors, whereas

if

here,

in the case of 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 ḥuppa.

Whereas in the case of money, there is only one acquisition!

If so, how can one derive 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 the case that Ben Beteira was referring

to intercourse unaccompanied by ḥuppa,

where this intercourse alone suffices to enable her to eat teruma,

and

from this he derived with regard to

money

that it too enables her to eat

without ḥuppa.

In this they are alike: both enable her to eat through a single acquisition.

And the Sages decreed that a woman may not eat through either of them until she enters ḥuppa.

If so, this proves that intercourse effects marriage:

For

it is understandable if you say that the words of the beraita make sense if you say that intercourse

effects marriage.

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

that is why it was obvious to him that intercourse is more powerful than money.

Therefore, it was obvious to Ben Beteira that intercourse is superior to money and that it certainly enables her to eat teruma, since it is stated concerning teruma: “Every clean person in your house may eat it.” The Sages expounded from this that a married woman eats teruma, because she is in her husband’s household. Since intercourse effects marriage, it certainly enables her to eat teruma.

It was therefore obvious to Ben Beteira that intercourse is superior 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 may eat it.” The Sages derived from this that a married woman may eat teruma, because she is in her husband’s house. Since intercourse effects marriage, it certainly enables her to eat teruma.

Rather,

but

if you say

that intercourse

alone effects betrothal

is what

effects it,

then this is difficult:

What is different here,

what is distinctive about intercourse,

that it is obvious to him

to Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira that it enables her to eat teruma?

And what is different here,

what is distinctive about money,

that it is uncertain to him

whether it effects the acquisition, so that he had to derive it from intercourse?

Rather, it is necessarily proven from the beraita that intercourse effects marriage.

And we reject the proof:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: I will always say [ I say ]

say]

to you

that it is referring

to intercourse

that enables her to eat

by means of the huppa, and

from this Ben Beteira derived that

money

enables her to eat

without means of the huppa.

But we challenged this: Is it possible to derive that money by itself enables her to eat from intercourse, which enables her to eat only through two factors [a. intercourse, b. huppa]?!

And Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak answers this:

And as for what you say: Here there are two and here there is one,

and regarding your question—intercourse enables her to eat through two acquisitions, so how can one derive from this that money will enable her to eat through a single acquisition?—one can answer:

A kal va-chomer can nevertheless be made; it is valid.

Despite this, it is possible to derive by means of a kal va-chomer that money enables her to eat even without the huppa, as follows:

And this is what he sent to him,

and this is what Ben Beteira sent to Ben Bag Bag:

And as for a Canaanite maidservant, who

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

her intercourse does not enable her to eat teruma even by means of the huppa,

and nevertheless

her money enables her to eat

teruma

without a huppa.

This demonstrates that the power of money without a huppa is greater than the power of intercourse and huppa together.

And if so,

this woman,

a priest’s wife,

whose intercourse enables her to eat teruma by means of

having entered the

huppa,

and

is it not an a fortiori inference

to say

that her money enables her to eat teruma

even

without a huppa?!

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

And Ben Beteira added and said:

But what can I do?

For the Sages said that a betrothed Israelite woman may not eat teruma until she enters the huppa, because of

the decree

that

Ulla mentioned

earlier [5a]: Since a betrothed woman is in her father’s home, there is concern that they may pour her a cup of teruma wine in her father’s home, and she may give it to her brothers and sisters to drink, although they are forbidden to eat teruma, as they are not priests.

And accordingly, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak also explains the reasoning 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:

Accordingly, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak also explains the reasoning of Ben Bag Bag, who, as it appears from the beraita, did not derive this a-fortiori inference. In his view, a betrothed woman does not eat teruma even by Torah law:

And Ben Bag Bag

holds that one cannot prove from a Canaanite maidservant that the power of the money of betrothal by itself is greater than the power of intercourse and huppa together, since

with regard to a Canaanite maidservant,

when he acquired her with money, he

left nothing out of her acquisition

and she is entirely his.

But

here,

in the case of a woman acquired with money,

something remains out of her acquisition.

For she has not yet entered his domain completely, so that he may inherit from her and become impure for her, until she enters the huppa.

Therefore, one cannot derive the power of the money of betrothal by itself from the money used to acquire a Canaanite maidservant.

Ravina disagrees with Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, and maintains that it did not enter Ben Beteira’s mind to derive that money by itself enables her to eat from intercourse, which enables her to eat only together with the huppa.

Therefore,

Ravina said:

There is another reason why one cannot prove from Ben Beteira’s words that intercourse effects marriage:

Even Ben Bag Bag, who maintained that a betrothed woman does not eat teruma,

is absolutely certain by Torah law that she eats

from the time of betrothal, whether she was betrothed through intercourse or through money. Therefore, one cannot prove from here that intercourse effects marriage. For even if it effects only betrothal, she nevertheless eats teruma.

And

only with regard to the prohibition

by rabbinic law did he send to him

Ben Beteira.

And this is what [ he sent ]

so]

he sent to him:

I, Ben Bag Bag, maintain that an Israelite woman betrothed to a priest with money or with a document does not eat teruma as long as she has not entered the huppa, because of the concern that a “simpon” may be found in her, that is, a blemish; and then her betrothal is retroactively void, because it becomes clear that it was a mistaken betrothal [as the husband did not betroth her on that condition]. And if a betrothed Israelite woman were to eat teruma, it would emerge that, ultimately, it became clear that she had violated a prohibition by eating it, since her betrothal was a mistaken betrothal.

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 the huppa. Once she enters the huppa, there is no longer concern that a blemish may be found in her and the betrothal invalidated, because it is customary for a man to have the woman examined by his female relatives before the huppa to determine whether she has a blemish; and even if it is found that she had a blemish, he certainly knew of it and agreed to marry her on that condition, so his betrothal is not a mistaken betrothal.

And

I have heard about you, that you

Ben Beteira

say: An Israelite woman who is betrothed

who was betrothed with money or with a document

eats teruma

even by rabbinic law.

And you are not concerned about a simpon [ a blemish ].

a physical defect].

Did you really say this?!

He sent to him

Ben Beteira:

And you,

do you,

do you not say so?!

After all,

I presume that you are expert in the innermost chambers of Torah,

and

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

But surely it can be proven by a kal va-chomer that even a woman betrothed with money or with a document eats teruma—

For there is no doubt that you too, Ben Bag Bag, agree that a woman betrothed to a priest through intercourse eats teruma even though she has not entered the huppa. There is no concern that a blemish may be found in her and invalidate the betrothal, because a man does not betroth a woman through intercourse before examining whether she has a blemish.

Therefore, even if a blemish is found in her, the betrothal is not void, since the husband knew of it and nevertheless betrothed her. This is not a mistaken betrothal.

Accordingly, one can derive by a kal va-chomer that a woman betrothed to a priest with money should eat teruma even by rabbinic law, and we should not be concerned about a simpon:

And as for a Canaanite maidservant, whose intercourse

with a priest

does not enable her to eat teruma,

and nevertheless

her money

enables her to eat teruma, and we are not concerned about a simpon,

and we do not fear that a blemish may be found in her and her acquisition invalidated because it was a mistaken sale.

If so,

this woman,

a priest’s wife,

whose intercourse enables her to eat teruma

even if she has not entered the huppa, so that her ability to eat teruma is greater than that of a Canaanite maidservant, who does not eat through intercourse—

and

is it not an a fortiori inference

to say

that her money enables her to eat teruma

just as we found with regard to a Canaanite maidservant,

and we should not be concerned about a simpon?!