Kiddushin, Daf Heh, Part 4
Introduction
Today s long sugya discusses whether huppah the entrance of the bride into the domain of the husband, can effect betrothal. Usually huppah is performed as marriage, not as betrothal.
We should note that huppah was more literal in Talmudic times than it is today. Today huppah is a symbolic entrance into the husband s domain (or in more egalitarian terms their beginning to live together). But back then it probably literally meant moving into his home.
אמר רב הונא חופה קונה מקל וחומר ומה כסף שאינו מאכיל בתרומה קונה חופה שמאכלת בתרומה אינו דין שתקנה
R. Huna said: Huppah acquires [a woman], from a kal vehomer. If money, which does not allow one to eat terumah, acquires; then huppah, which allows one to eat terumah, surely acquires!
R. Huna argues that if money can acquire a wife in betrothal but still does not allow her to eat terumah (if she is betrothed to a priest) then all the more so huppah, which does allow her to eat terumah (when marrying a priest) should also acquire her in betrothal.
וכסף אינו מאכיל והאמר עולא דבר תורה ארוסה בת ישראל אוכלת בתרומה שנאמר (ויקרא כב, יא) וכהן כי יקנה נפש קנין כספו והאי קנין כספו הוא ומה טעם אמרו אינה אוכלת גזירה שמא ימזגו לה כוס בבית אביה ותשקנו לאחיה ולאחותיה
And money does not allow her to eat terumah? But has not Ulla stated: The daughter of an Israelite who is betrothed [to a priest] is, according to Torah law, permitted to eat terumah, for it said, a person who is a priest s property by purchase (Lev 22:11) and that [woman] also is his acquisition through money.
What is the reason why they ruled that she is not permitted to eat [terumah]? Lest they mix her a cup [of terumah] in her father’s home and she gives it her brother or sister to drink.
Ulla stated that according to the Torah, a woman betrothed to a priest should be able to eat terumah immediately after betrothal through money. She is fully connected to him and is part of the priest s family. Halakhah does not allow this lest she come to give terumah to the members of her childhood family who are not priests.
אלא פריך הכי ומה כסף שאינו גומר קונה חופה שגומרת אינו דין שתקנה
Rather argue thus: if money, which does not complete [marriage], acquires [in marriage], then huppah, which completes [marriage], surely acquires!
The Talmud tweaks the argument. Money cannot be used for marriage and yet it acquires in betrothal. Therefore huppah which is the way that marriage is completed should also acquire in betrothal.
מה לכסף שכן פודין בו הקדשות ומעשר שני
As for money, that is because sacred things and second tithe are redeemed with it!
The Talmud will now raise a series of difficulties against this kal vehomer argument. Money works in betrothal because it can be used to redeem sacred things and second tithe. But huppah cannot, therefore, huppah cannot be used for betrothal.
ביאה תוכיח מה לביאה שכן קונה ביבמה
Let then intercourse prove it. As for intercourse, that is because it acquires in the case of a yevamah!
But intercourse does not work to redeem sacred things and second tithe and nevertheless it does work in betrothal. So too should huppah.
The problem is that intercourse does work to acquire a yevamah and thus is a valid means of betrothal. But huppah does not work to acquire a yevamah and therefore cannot be used for betrothal.
כסף יוכיח
וחזר הדין לא ראי זה כראי זה ולא ראי זה כראי זה הצד השוה שבהן שקונין בעלמא וקונין כאן אף אני אביא חופה שקונה בעלמא וקונה כאן
Then let money prove it.
And thus the argument revolves: the distinguishing feature of one is not like that of the other, nor is the distinguishing of this one like that of the other; the feature common to both is that they acquire elsewhere, and acquire here [in marriage]; so too I will include huppah, which acquires elsewhere and acquires here too.
The Talmud now tries to take money and intercourse together and use them both as a kal vehomer to prove that huppah can acquire in betrothal. Money and intercourse are both means to acquire elsewhere (in purchases or in the case of the yevamah) and in betrothal. Huppah acquires elsewhere (in marriage) and therefore should also acquire here, as a means of betrothal.
מה לצד השוה שבהן שכן הנאתן מרובה
[No.] The feature common to both is that they are greatly pleasurable!
The Talmud refutes the comparison sex and money are pleasurable and therefore acquire in betrothal. Huppah is not.
שטר יוכיח מה לשטר שכן מוציא בבת ישראל
Let the document then prove it.
As for the document, that is because it frees an Israelite woman in divorce.
A document works for betrothal and nevertheless there is not pleasure in it. So too should huppah.
But the problem is that a document has the power to release a woman in divorce. Therefore it acquires in betrothal. Huppah is not a means of divorce and therefore we have no reason to think it would acquire in betrothal.
כסף וביאה יוכיחו וחזר הדין לא ראי זה כראי זה ולא ראי זה כראי זה הצד השוה שבהן שקונין בעלמא וקונין כאן אף אני אביא חופה שקונה בעלמא וקונה כאן
Then let money and intercourse prove it. And thus the argument revolves: the distinguishing feature of one is not that of another, nor is the distinguishing feature of this one that of the other: the feature common to all is that they acquire in general and here too; so too I will include huppah, that it acquires in general and here too.
Money and intercourse are also not means of divorce and therefore they should prove that huppah can acquire. But this again could be refuted because there is pleasure with money and intercourse. As it did above, the argument goes around in circles. But what all three have in common is that they all acquire (money and documents acquire things, intercourse acquires a yevamah) and acquire in betrothal, so too huppah acquires elsewhere (in marriage) and should also acquire here.
מה להצד השוה שבהן שכן ישנן בע"כ
ורב הונא כסף מיהא באישות לא אשכחן בע"כ
[No.] As for the common feature, it is that they can be done against her will. And R. Huna? Money at least in matters of marriage is not found against her will.
The Talmud now refutes the commonality money, document and intercourse can all be performed against her will whereas huppah cannot (money buys the handmaiden, document frees a divorcee against her will, and intercourse acquires the yevamah).
But R. Huna could respond that money does not work against her will to betroth her in marriage. Therefore, there is no commonality and the three together can be used to demonstrate that huppah is a means of betrothal.
So after all of this the Talmud has finally provided some support for R. Huna.
אמר רבא שתי תשובות בדבר חדא דשלש תנן וד’ לא תנן ועוד כלום חופה גומרת אלא ע"י קידושין וכי גמרי’ חופה שלא ע"י קידושין מחופה שע"י קידושין
Rava said: There are two refutations of the matter: First, we learned three [means of betrothal], not four; and moreover, does not huppah complete [marriage] only through [prior] betrothal; can we then deduce huppah, which is not preceded by betrothal, from huppah when preceded by betrothal?
Rava raises two difficulties on R. Huna. First of all, the mishnah teaches there are three ways of betrothal, not four. Second, huppah acquires in marriage only when preceded by betrothal. But without prior betrothal, why should we think there is any efficacy to huppah whatsoever.
א"ל אביי הא דקאמרת ג’ תנן וד’ לא תנן תנא מילתא דכתיבא בהדיא קתני מילתא דלא כתיבא בהדיא לא קתני
ודקאמרת כלום חופה גומרת אלא ע"י קידושין רב הונא נמי ה"ק ומה כסף שאינו גומר אחר כסף קונה חופה שגומרת אחר כסף אינו דין שתקנה :
Abaye answered him: That which you said, we learned three [means of betrothal], not four: the tanna taught [only] what is explicitly stated [in the Torah], but not what is not explicitly stated.
And when you said; does not huppah complete [marriage] only through [prior] betrothal, Rav Huna also said this: if money, which cannot complete [marriage] after money, nevertheless acquires; then huppah, which completes [marriage] after money, can surely acquire.
Abaye answers Rava s two difficulties on R. Huna. The mishnah only taught means of betrothal that could be learned through midrash. And R. Huna s argument was based on the awareness that huppah acquires in marriage only after betrothal through money. He simply noted that money never acquires in marriage, even after betrothal. But huppah does aquire after betrothal. Therefore it is as strong as money and should acquire in betrothal as well.