The audio series of the Talmud Bavli, focusing on Masechet Kiddushin, has been generously sponsored by our friend Mr. Chaimy Dana, may he be protected and live long, in honor of his wife Dina bat Rivka. May they be blessed with many years of shalom bayit, success, livelihood, health, happiness, and nachat from their children, along with all good blessings, amen. Today’s daf is being studied for the elevation of the souls of my revered teacher, Mori Zekeni Yosef ben Sara, and my esteemed grandmother, Zekenati Yaffa bat Sara. May their souls be bound in the bond of life, amen. We also dedicate today’s learning for the complete recovery of Moshe ben Dina, Sara Ruchama bat Chaya, and Sara bat Chaya. May they be healed in body and spirit, and may their healing come quickly, amen. We begin today’s daf on Daf Yod, the first side, nine lines from the top.
Earlier in the masechet, we learned that one way a woman can become married, through kiddushin, is by giving her money, as expressed by the phrase, “harei at mekudeshet li,” meaning "behold, you are betrothed to me." This act of giving money establishes a kinyan. A second method we discussed is through a shtar, or a document, which states, “harei at mekudeshet li.” The value of the document is not essential; rather, it is the wording that effects the kiddushin. The third method involves biah, or cohabitation, where the husband states, “harei at mekudeshet li beviah zu kedat Moshe veYisrael,” indicating that the act of cohabitation is for the purpose of kiddushin.
Now, the Gemara poses a question regarding biah: within the act of biah, there is a techilat biah and a sof biah. The techilat biah refers to the initial entry, termed haara'ah, where there is an initial contact but not a complete act. The sof biah signifies the completion of the act. The inquiry is whether the kiddushin is established through the techilat biah or the sof biah. The implications of this distinction are significant. If the techilat biah does not effect the kiddushin, then a subsequent kiddushin from another man would be valid. Conversely, if the techilat biah does effect the kiddushin, then the second kiddushin would be void.
The Gemara presents two potential implications. One is related to a case where the initial biah occurs, followed by the woman accepting kiddushin from another man. The second implication pertains to a kohen gadol, who is only permitted to marry a betula. If the kiddushin occurs through the sof biah, then after the haara'ah, the woman is no longer a betula, and the kiddushin would be invalid.
The Gemara articulates this inquiry: “Is the techilat biah effective in establishing the kiddushin, or is it the sof biah that is effective?” The Gemara then states that if one has made an initial contact and subsequently receives kiddushin from another, the status of the second kiddushin must be clarified. The Gemara cites that if the sof biah is what establishes the kiddushin, then she would not be able to accept a second kiddushin as valid.
Next, the Gemara addresses the status of a kohen gadol. It notes that if the kohen gadol marries a woman who is no longer a betula due to the initial haara'ah, he would be marrying a be'ulah, which is prohibited. Therefore, the question remains whether the techilat biah or the sof biah is what establishes the kiddushin.
The Gemara continues to explore this issue by referencing the opinion of Amemar in the name of Rava, stating that the completion of the biah is what establishes the kiddushin. Thus, if the techilat biah is effective, then the kiddushin is valid; if not, the woman may accept kiddushin from another man.
However, the Tosafot raises a contradiction from Masechet Yevamot, where it states that a woman can be acquired through haara'ah. This creates a conflict between the two sugyot. The Tosafot explains that there is a significant difference in intent between the two cases. In the case of Yevamot, the haara'ah is done with the intent to effect kiddushin, whereas in the current discussion, the biah is presumed to be a full act.
As the discussion progresses, the Gemara poses another question regarding whether biah constitutes erusin or nisuin. It is established that biah certainly effects erusin, but the question remains whether it also completes the marriage. The Gemara seeks to clarify the implications of biah in terms of inheritance and other marital rights.
In conclusion, the Gemara continues to analyze the nature of biah as a means of establishing kiddushin and nisuin, exploring various scenarios and implications of the halachic rulings. Through this intricate discussion, it becomes clear that the distinctions made regarding biah are critical in determining the status of marriages and the rights and obligations that arise from them.