Kiddushin, Daf Yod, Part 6
Introduction
The sugya continues to discuss the dispute between Ben Bag Bag, who believed that a woman betrothed to a priest should not eat terumah and Ben Batera who held that she can. In today s sugya, Ravina transforms the argument from one over whether the Torah prohibits the betrothed girl from eating terumah to whether the rabbis prohibit it.
רבינא אמר מדאורייתא מיפשט פשיטא ליה דאכלה ומדרבנן הוא דשלח ליה והכי שלח ליה שמעתי עליך שאתה אומר ארוסה בת ישראל אוכלת בתרומה ולא חיישת לסימפון
Ravina said: From the Torah he was certain that she may eat [terumah] and it was only concerning rabbinic law that he [R. Yohanan b. Bag Bag] sent word to him [that she is forbidden], and this is what he sent to him: I have heard of you that you rule: An daughter of an Israelite betrothed to a Kohen may eat of terumah, and you are not concerned about the possibility of nullification.
According to Ravina, all sages agree that from the Torah, an Israelite woman betrothed to a Kohen may eat terumah immediately. She need not wait for huppah. The issue is whether the rabbis prohibited it. Ben Bag Bag accuses Ben Batera of not being concerned about a simpon which is a way of annulling a sale or contract. If the husband can annul the betrothal then it would turn out that she was never betrothed to the Kohen. If she eats terumah before huppah and then the betrothal is annulled it, retroactively it would turn out that she ate terumah as an Israelite.
שלח ליה 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 ולא חיישינן לסימפון זו שביאתה מאכילתה בתרומה אינו דין שכספה מאכילתה בתרומה ולא ניחוש לסימפון אבל מה אעשה שהרי אמרו חכמים ארוסה בת ישראל אינה אוכלת בתרומה עד שתכנס לחופה משום דעולא
He sent back: And do you not rule the same? I am certain that you are well versed in the rooms of the Torah, [and able] to infer a kal vehomer argument. Do you not know: if a non-Jewish female slave whose intercourse does not permit her to eat terumah, yet [acquisition by] money does, and we are not concerned about the possibility of nullification; then this one [a betrothed girl], whose intercourse does permit her to eat terumah, surely [acquisition by] money does, and we should not be concerned about the possibility of nullification. But what can I do, seeing that the Sages ruled: A daughter of an Israelite betrothed to a Kohen may not eat terumah until she enters huppah, on account of Ulla’s statement.
This is Ravina s rewrite of Ben Batera s argument. When a kohen acquires a Canaanite slave, the slave eats terumah immediately and we are not concerned that the sale will be annulled. So why shouldn t the same be true about a girl betrothed to a Kohen? Ben Batera then admits that the sages do not allow a betrothed girl to eat terumah because of Ulla s concern that she will feed terumah to her relatives.
ובן בג בג סימפון בעבדים לית ליה אי מומין שבגלוי הוא הא קא חזי ליה אי משום מומין שבסתר מאי נפקא ליה מיניה למלאכה קא בעי ליה לא איכפת ליה
קוביוסטוס הגיעו מאי אמרת לסטים מזויין או נכתב למלכות הנהו קלא אית להו
And Ben Bag Bag? He holds that there is no simpon for slaves, for if it is external, he would have seen it [and bought the slave anyways] and if it is internal, he wants the slave for the purpose of work, and if it is hidden, he does not care. If it turns out that the slave is a thief or a gambler, the acquisition is still valid. An armed robber or assigned to death by the government these are well-known.
Ben Bag Bag must now explain why a slave can eat terumah immediately and we re not concerned about nullification of the sale, whereas a betrothed girl cannot. The answer is that there is no way that the sale of a slave could be annulled by simpon. If the flaw is internal or hidden, then the owner should not care about it, because the slave is bought only for work. If the flaw is visible outside of the clothes, then the purchaser accepted the flaw when he bought the slave. If the slave turns out to be a thief or gambler, the sale cannot be annulled. And if the slave turns out to be an armed robber or condemned to die, the sale cannot be invalidated because the purchaser should have known about this before he bought the slave.
מכדי בין למר ובין למר לא אכלה מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו קיבל מסר והלך:
Since both agree that she [a betrothed woman] may not eat, what do they disagree about?
They differ where he [the husband] accepted [bodily defects], or he [the father] delivered [her to the husband’s agents to be taken to her husband’s home], or if they [the father’s messengers] went on the way with [the husband’s agents to escort the bride to her new home].
Both Ben Bag Bag and Ben Batera agree that a woman does not eat terumah until she enters the huppah, so what is it that they re arguing about? In other words, what is the practical difference between the two reasons why a woman does not eat terumah until she enters the huppah for fear that she will give the terumah to her family (Ben Batera), or fear that the betrothal will be annulled (Ben Bag Bag)? There are two such differences. First of all, if the husband accepts all of his wife s defects, then Ben Bag Bag would say that she can eat terumah immediately. But Ben Batera would say she cannot lest she give the terumah to her family members. The other difference is a case where the father delivered his daughter to the husband s agents or even if the father s agents have gone with the husband s agents. In both of these cases the marriage could still be annulled, so Ben Bag Bag would not allow her to eat terumah. But she is no longer with her family, so there is no fear that she will give to her family.