Kiddushin, Daf Yod, Part 5
Introduction
We continue to discuss the baraita about whether a woman betrothed to a priest can eat terumah.
אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק לעולם אימא לך בביאה שעל ידי חופה וכסף שלא ע"י חופה ודקאמרת הכא תרתי והכא חדא קל וחומר מיהא איתיה והכי שלח ליה ומה שפחה כנענית שאין ביאתה מאכילתה בתרומה אפילו על ידי חופה כספה מאכילתה בלא חופה זו שביאתה מאכילתה בתרומה על ידי חופה אינו דין שכספה מאכילתה בתרומה בלא חופה
R. Nahman b. Yitzchak said: In the end, I can say to you that [the reference is to] intercourse with huppah and money without huppah. And as to your objection, here there are two, while there there is only one: nevertheless there is still a kal vehomer argument. And this is what he sent to him: If a non-Jewish slavewoman, with whom intercourse does not permit her to eat of terumah even after huppah, yet [acquisition by] money even without huppah allows her to eat terumah, then this one, with whom intercourse when accompanied by huppah permits her to eat terumah, surely [acquisition by] money even without intercourse permits her to eat terumah.
R. Nahman b. Yitzchak tweaks Ben Batera s argument such that when he refers to intercourse, he refers to intercourse that follows huppah (in other words marriage) whereas when he refers to betrothal through money, he refers to kiddushin and not huppah. This allows him to hold that intercourse creates a bond of betrothal and not marriage. [Note that this is probably the simple reading of the source when Ben Batera referred to intercourse, he was referring to the intercourse that typically follows huppah].
אבל מה אעשה שהרי אמרו חכמים אין ארוסה בת ישראל אוכלת בתרומה עד שתכנס לחופה משום דעולא
But what can I do, seeing that the sages ruled: A betrothed daughter of an Israelite does not eat terumah until she enters huppah, on account of Ulla’s statement.
This is an explanation of the end of the baraita. If Ben Batera holds that a woman can eat terumah even before she enters the huppah, so then why don t the sages allow her to do so? This was explained by Ulla earlier in Kiddushin lest she come to feed terumah to her non-priestly family.
ובן בג בג גבי שפחה כנענית לא שייר בקנינה הכא שייר בקנינה
And Ben Bag Bag? In the case of the non-Jewish slave woman he has not left out any part of her acquisition; but here he has left out part part of her acquisition.
Now the Talmud explains why Ben Bag Bag would reject Ben Batera s argument. A Canaanite slave acquired through money eats terumah as soon as she is acquired because there are no steps left to fully acquiring her. But a woman betrothed with money does not eat terumah because there is still a stage left to her full acquisition she must enter his domain. Therefore, the kal vehomer argument does not hold.