Kiddushin, Daf Yod, Part 4
Introduction
Today s daf continues to discuss whether betrothal through intercourse creates betrothal or full marriage. The source cited is a critical argument between two sages over whether a woman betrothed to a Kohen can eat terumah. This is a source I analyze in depth in a forthcoming book (Reconstructing the Talmud: Volume 2). I believe that the issue at hand is how strong Jewish, rabbinic-style betrothal is. If betrothal is strong then a woman betrothed to a priest may eat terumah, which is strictly reserved for members of the kohen s family. A weaker form of betrothal might prohibit this and not allow her to eat terumah until she enters her home. For comparison s sake, in our society betrothal is relatively weak. A couple who gets engage does not need a divorce to split up. They are not, as far as I know, considered a unit in the eyes of the law.
תא שמע וכבר שלח יוחנן בן בג בג אצל רבי יהודה בן בתירה לנציבין שמעתי עליך שאתה אומר ארוסה בת ישראל אוכלת בתרומה
Come and hear: Yohanan b. Bag Bag had already sent [word] to R. Judah b. Batera at Nisibis: I have heard of you that you say that a daughter of an Israelite betrothed [to a priest], may eat terumah.
Evidently Yohanan b. Bag Bag wrote a letter from somewhere in Israel to R. Judah b. Batera who was residing in Netzivin (currently in Syria) complaining that the latter was allowing girls betrothed to priests to eat terumah. If we can read into this, we can see that R. Judah seems to espouse a strong form of betrothal, whereas Yohanan b. Bag Bag, an obscure sage, vehemently disagrees with such a notion. While rabbinic literature is full of disputes, it is quite rare for one sage to write a letter to another sage at such a great distance, with what clearly can be read as an attack.
שלח לו ואתה אי אתה אומר כן מוחזקני בך שאתה בקי בחדרי תורה לדרוש בקל וחומר אי אתה יודע ומה שפחה כנענית שאין ביאתה מאכילתה בתרומה כספה מאכילתה בתרומה זו שביאתה מאכילתה בתרומה אינו דין שכספה מאכילתה בתרומה אבל מה אעשה שהרי אמרו חכמים אין ארוסה בת ישראל אוכלת בתרומה עד שתכנס לחופה
He sent back: And you do not say the same? I am certain of you that you are well versed in the rooms of Torah [and you know how] to derive a kal vehomer. Do you not know: if a female non-Jewish slave, with whom intercourse does not permit her to eat of terumah, yet [acquisition by] money does permit her to eat of terumah; then this one, [a betrothed girl], whose intercourse [with a priest] permits her to eat terumah, surely money permits her to eat terumah! But what can I do, seeing that the Sages ruled: A betrothed daughter of an Israelite, may not eat terumah until she enters huppah?
R. Judah b. Batera argues that if a Caananite slave woman can eat terumah after being purchased by a Kohen, even though if the priest has intercourse with her it would not allow her to eat terumah, all the more so an Israelite girl betrothed to a priest through money should also be allowed to eat terumah. After all, intercourse with her would also allow her to eat terumah. The simple meaning of this is that it refers to intercourse as part of marriage. However, the Talmud will try to read this as proof that betrothal through intercourse is sufficient to cause marriage.
היכי דמי אי בביאה שעל ידי חופה וכסף שעל ידי חופה בתרוייהו מיכל אכלה
ואלא בביאה שעל ידי חופה וכסף שלא על ידי חופה הכא תרתי והכא חדא
אלא לאו בביאה שלא על ידי חופה וכסף שלא על ידי חופה
What is the case? If [the reference is to] intercourse with huppah, and money with huppah, in both cases she may certainly eat [terumah].
But if to intercourse with huppah, and money without huppah: here there are two, while there is only one,
Hence it must surely refer to both intercourse without huppah and money without huppah.
The Talmud clarifies that in order for Ben Batera s argument to make sense both the intercourse and the giving of the money must have been the only act performed, not accompanied by huppah. After all, after entering the huppah all agree that she eats terumah.
אי אמרת בשלמא נשואין עושה משום הכי פשיטא ליה דאלימא לה ביאה מכסף
אלא אי אמרת קדושין עושה מאי שנא הכא דפשיטא ליה ומאי שנא הכא דמספקא ליה
Now, if you say that it [intercourse] effects marriage it is for this reason that it is obvious to him that intercourse is stronger than money [in its acquiring power].
But if you say that it effects only kiddushin [betrothal], why is he certain in the one case and doubtful in the other?
The Talmud argues that according to Ben Batera intercourse as a means of betrothal creates a bond of marriage. That is why it is obvious to him that a woman eats terumah after intercourse with a Kohen. But if he held that intercourse only creates betrothal, then how could he be so sure that after betrothal through intercourse she eats terumah, but not after betrothal through money.
The argument based on this baraita will continue with tomorrow s section.