We ended up in the middle of a discussion yesterday. I should have finished it to the end, to the two knots. I’ll bring it back up to speed. The question is: How do you doresh pesukim (expound verses)? Rabbi Hanan told us that the words Be'ulat Ba'al (a woman who has had intercourse with her husband) tell us that bi'ah (intercourse) works to effect kiddushin. Rabbi had another pasuk (verse): “ki yikach ish ishah uva'alah” (When a man takes a wife and consummates the marriage). That pasuk is not from Be'ulat Ba'al.
So let’s do the last three lines of yesterday’s page—four lines: “Ve'lerabbi, hai Be'ulat Ba'al mai avid lei?” (What does Rebbe do with it?) What does Rabbi do with the word Be'ulat Ba'al? According to him, it comes to teach me that a woman can be acquired with bi'ah, because he knows from the other pasuk that only a husband makes his wife a non-virgin by doing it unnaturally. If a husband did it to his wife unnaturally, she would become a non-virgin. Be'ulat Ba'al is from the husband, but if someone else does it, she still—she does not become a non-virgin.
That can’t be. It’s not true. Rabbi himself is on record as saying the opposite. Tanya (it was taught)—we had this yesterday: ten people had intercourse with her unnaturally, and she still has her virginity. She is a betrothed maiden, a betrothed girl. All ten get s'kilah (stoning) because they are taking a betrothed na'ara (young woman). Rebbe omer, omer ani (Rebbe says, I say)—Rebbe says, no, only the first one finds her a betulah (virgin). With the other one, she is no longer a betulah. So I see that she is a na'ara even when it is not her husband. Only the husband makes her not a betulah.
Now, on today’s page: “Amar Rabbi Zeira, Rebbe le-inyan k'nas” (Rabbi Zeira said, Rebbe regarding the fine). Rabbi Zeira says, “You’re right; Rebbe splits the ticket.” It depends on what we’re discussing. When it comes to killing the man for being with the woman—s'kilah—Rebbe holds that once someone has had intercourse with her unnaturally, she is no longer a betulah. Rebbe holds, as far as paying fines, when an unmarried virgin is raped or seduced, the attacker has to pay a certain fine. We want to know whether, if the na'ara was subject to unnatural intercourse, she is still called a betulah or not. Rebbe holds that, as far as k'nas (fine) is concerned, all ten would pay.
Let’s say in this case she wouldn’t be a betrothed maiden, but she is mekudeshet (betrothed), a na'arah me'orasah (betrothed maiden). She is a single girl, and all ten had unnatural bi'ah. All ten would have to pay. So Rebbe splits the matter between k'nas and mitah (death penalty). What is different about killing? When it comes to the death penalty, the pasuk says that the man who slept with her—alone—shall die. There, he was talking about the man alone in the case where he raped her, so she is really innocent. That’s really what the word levado (alone) means. Rebbe says that levado is extra, to teach me that only the first man alone shall die by stoning. All subsequent offenders will get strangulation because she is no longer a virgin. That is only when it comes to mitah, death. When it comes to k'nas, he splits the ticket. When it comes to k'nas, all ten would have to pay.
The Rabbanan (the Sages), the rabbis, hold that all ten are subject to stoning. What do they do with the word levado? What do they do with the word levado? Does it mean only him? That’s not true; all ten get it. It says that an adulterous married woman and the other man both die, right? What does it mean that both of them die? Only if both are old enough to be punished by the courts. That means that if an adult has adulterous intercourse with a minor girl, the girl is a minor, but she is fully married—her father married her to another man—and the man takes her, the Rishon says the man is patur (exempt). He says, “What is the problem?” No, the man himself is the one who is liable. If the woman is patur because she is a minor, underage, and is not going to be killed, that doesn’t matter; he will be killed. So the rabbis expound the word as coming to teach me that only one man gets killed because it is unnatural. It is not referring to the unnatural act. It is talking about being underage: the man himself will be killed even though the girl is not going to be killed.
So now it comes out that Be'ulat Ba'al tells me that both Rebbe and the Hachamim (Sages) hold that only a woman’s husband, no one else, can make her a non-virgin through unnatural intercourse. But Rabbi Hanan learns from Be'ulat Ba'al that bi'ah effects kiddushin. So Rabbi Hanan is going to learn this law—that only a husband can make his wife a non-virgin unnaturally—from something else. He says, no, it can teach both. If you just want to tell me that bi'ah effects kiddushin, just say Ba'ulat Ish. Why Ba'al? Tell me only the husband. Ba'al is the husband. Only the husband can make her a non-virgin through an unnatural act, not anyone else. So it comes out that everyone has the same law, and a new question.
Now we’re going to go to two new questions on iba'i lahu (they asked): teḥilat bi'ah or sof bi'ah? That’s what a lot of yeshiva boys do when they learn Kiddushin: they start from your aleph, but they don’t want to teach kids about bi'ah. What does bi'ah mean? When they learn Mishnah, bi'ah means a case of money: start, or take it to your house. It’s just a bi'ah, going to your house. You can’t teach the kid about intercourse.
But we’re learning it like this now. When a person is going to marry her through intercourse—copulation, they call it bi'ah—is it the beginning of the bi'ah or the end of the bi'ah? The beginning is just like when he puts the eiver (limb) right there; or is it sof bi'ah, the whole thing? What’s the practical difference? Who cares? He just started the act, and then all of a sudden someone else came and gave her money. “You want to marry me?” She took the money from someone else. Now, the case is a little weird. The guy is in the middle, and all of a sudden someone else—witnesses, no less. He gave her—he doesn’t have to care about the propriety of the case. He might want to know halacha lema'aseh (practical halacha): is she mekudeshet with the teḥilat bi'ah or with the sof bi'ah?
If you say teḥilat bi'ah, she is acquired from the first act. It’s a simple case: they didn’t finish. They started, but they left. He left. Whatever became of the idea—I don’t even know. It was a crazy case. What do you need such a crazy case for? Why do you need such a funny case?
Okay, we’ll have to look it up. The second case is even more—the second question in the Gemara is even more to the point. We also know that a Kohen Gadol (High Priest) is only allowed to marry a betulah. So if the initial bi'ah makes her his wife, when the Kohen Gadol takes his young girl and makes the initial penetration, he marries her. Good. But what if you tell me that when he first takes her, he takes away her betulim (signs of virginity), and she is no longer a betulah? If he marries her at the end, he is marrying her when she is no longer a betulah. He married her when she was no longer a betulah, but he only marries her at the end. What’s that? There’s no proof.
He gives us a logical concept: a person who is bo'er (has intercourse), his mind is on the completion. Therefore, the end is what effects kiddushah. Tosafot says that’s only when he finished. Let’s say he didn’t finish. Maybe he should have been married without it. But when the guy finishes, his intention is to finish. Is it all in his Kabbalah? That’s what the Gemara is saying. That’s what Tosafot says. Besides, there is an opinion like that. The problem is that Tosafot has a kushya (question) from Yevamot, which says that ha'ara'ah (initial penetration) is all you need, because ha'ara'ah is the beginning. So, I suppose the answer is that you only did ha'ara'ah, only the beginning. The one who only finished—when you finish, then your intention is to finish only with that. He has a whole bunch of Rishonim (early authorities); I have to see what they say.
Iba'i lahu, another shayla (question): bi'ah nisu'in osa'a o erusin osa'a (Does intercourse effect marriage or betrothal?). The man gives another beautiful question. When a guy does it, as soon as he finishes, is he still only betrothed and does he have to do more, or does it do two for one? Does it do two for one? What’s the nafka mina (practical difference)? The nafka mina is that you have to do nisu'in (marriage) again. The man wants to know the nafka mina: to inherit her, to become tamei (ritually impure) for her, or to annul her vows. If you say it effects nisu'in already, he is yoresh (inherits) her, he can become tamei for her—he’s a Kohen—and he can lehafer nedareha (to annul her vows). If you say it effects erusin (betrothal), then he has to do it with the father; he has to handle the annulment of her vows with him. So the practical difference is: if he just did it and then she died, does he inherit her or not?
We’re going to bring a proof. We had this before: the father is the one who gets her. Whether he gets the money or can tell the husband, “You want to do kiddushin or bi'ah and pay me for it? Pay me.” It says he can also receive her lost article or her work, or handle her vows. And the father is the only one who can receive the get. A father does not consume the produce of the field of her property during her lifetime. That means if the betrothed maiden inherited items from any of her mother’s relatives, and the father didn’t have a share in them, the father normally gets them from his daughter. This part, he doesn’t get. Once she is fully married, the husband has the advantage over the father. He is entitled to consume the yield of her property. We said the father is not able to do that, right? But once she is fully married, the husband has greater rights than the father, and he can consume the yield of her property.
Now, k'tani bi'ah (it teaches intercourse), k'tani niset (it teaches that she married). First it tells us that the father is zocheh be'vito (has rights over his daughter): kesef (money), shtar (document), and bi'ah. Then it tells me, “niset”—if she got fully married, tell me that bi'ah does it fully. It must be that bi'ah doesn’t do it fully. That’s the Gemara’s raya (proof). The Gemara says, no: k'tani niset. No. Maybe bi'ah does it fully, but it says so because it has to distinguish between being fully married and not fully married. Could it be that those two are fully married on their own, and that is why it mentions first that she got fully married? Maybe it is referring to the other two. Maybe she would be fully married; we don’t know. So still, no proof.
I’m going to bring another proof. If she is three years old, she can be betrothed through bi'ah. The Mishnah teaches that a girl under three has her betulim come back. So her bi'ah does not have a shem bi'ah (status of intercourse). But what are the laws? Number one: kiddushin. If the husband dies and the yavam (levirate brother) does yibum (levirate marriage) with her, if she is over three, she is acquired; the yibum works. If she is less than three, it doesn’t work. With an adulterous relationship, another man takes her. Hayav (liable) if she is over three.
You know what that is? If a man has a relationship with a niddah (menstruant), she makes him tamei because the pasuk says that when he sleeps with her, he becomes tamei as well. As for making the bottom mattress as severe as the clothing spread over a zav (man with genital discharge), the law is like this: a zav and a zavah (woman with genital discharge) have a greater obligation of—what do you call it? A zav and a zavah have greater tumah (ritual impurity) than anybody, right? But even with a niddah, in a certain sense, if she is a niddah and lies on the bed, any mattress beneath her becomes tamei, even if she doesn’t fit and there are ten different mattresses—even the bottom one. There is so much tumah that she can give tumah to another person. It becomes like an av (primary source of impurity). A niddah and a zavah can make the bottom mattress like an av. You didn’t touch it; you’re just lying on it.
A man who has intercourse with a niddah makes the bottom mattress beneath him one level less, like a rishon (first-degree impurity). But the Rishon says that’s only if he has intercourse with a woman who is three years old and up. If he has intercourse with her when she is less than three, she is not tamei. It doesn’t make him tamei at all. When he sits, it’s like he touched a niddah. She’s a niddah; he didn’t have intercourse with her, he touched her. So the man would only become tamei until evening. That’s all. And he could not make the bottom mattresses tamei.
“Ve'im niset la'Kohen ochelet bitrumah” (And if she marries a Kohen, she eats terumah (priestly offering)). Here’s the key we’re going to learn from this. It says that this girl, through bi'ah, if she is three years old, eats terumah, because now she is married to a Kohen. “Ve'im ba'aleha echad mikol arayot shebaTorah” (if a forbidden relation has intercourse)—anybody who does arayot (forbidden relations) with her when she is over three gets killed. He picked her up, but she is exempt because she is underage. However, she is a bas Kohen (daughter of a Kohen), and if someone has relations with her when she is over three, she can no longer return to a Kohen. At three, she can. This Mishnah there gives us all the different laws of three years old versus under three, right?
The problem is, here’s the question. She had bi'ah, then it says that she got fully married to the Kohen. What do you mean, if she had bi'ah with the guy? You’re telling me bi'ah effects nisu'in, so it’s automatic. What do you mean? We’re talking about her having bi'ah with the Kohen. If she had nisu'in, she could eat terumah. Bi'ah effects nisu'in, so it must be that it doesn’t. You can understand it, of course: bi'ah effects nisu'in, which just means that if she had bi'ah with a Kohen, which would make nisu'in, she’ll eat terumah. It isn’t coming to shed light on our question of whether bi'ah makes nisu'in or not.
So what do I need? Don’t we know this already? Know what? If someone is married, she can eat terumah. No, over there it gives us the whole thing step by step: if you have bi'ah when she is three years old, this happens, this happens, and it also gives the possibility of terumah. It’s just putting all the different pieces together.
Ta shema (come and hear)—I was still going to try to bring another proof. This is a great case. There’s a question about Ben Bagbag and Ben Beteda. “I heard in your name: the old arusah (betrothed woman), she’s a bat Yisrael (Israelite woman), she’s not a Kohenet, but she’s betrothed to a Kohen. She can eat terumah.” Is that true? You said that? You don’t hold like that? I know it’s well established that you know everything in the whole Torah. You are expert in all the secrets of the Torah. You can’t make a kal vachomer (a fortiori inference) if you’re so well learned? You don’t know how to make a kal vachomer? I’m going to make a kal vachomer for you. This is going to be the crux of the thing.
If a guy wants to buy a maidservant, what does he do? Does he sleep with her? No. If he sleeps with her, is it going to cause her to eat terumah? He’s a Kohen. No. Sleeping with her is not going to cause it. Yet if he buys her, she eats terumah. She’s his maidservant. I see kesef is better than bi'ah. Why? Because he’s doing it—and we’re assuming it’s going to make her eat, because she’s the one who eats. Rabbi Yehudah wants to make a case that doesn’t work. A regular woman’s bi'ah works to effect nisu'in for sure. Kesef to make her be permitted to eat terumah. Didn’t we learn this in the Gemara? I was going to throw that in there. That’s what I say. Reza Bebetah is answering back to him. What should I do? Like he said, because really she should eat—halachically, yes, eat. But what should I do? The rabbis said no; she’s going to feed her brothers, so take it home. What was this case of money you’re trying to show me? One is better than the other. What’s the case? You listening, Dave?
If you’re talking about the guy who already did chuppah (marital canopy), let’s make it easy. The guy did bi'ah with chuppah, and kesef also with chuppah, for a married woman, so in both cases she eats. So what are you telling me? Money works for the shifchah (maidservant) for sure; it should work for money, should work for marriage, to make her eat. It does work if you did chuppah; money and chuppah do work. There’s no question that could be the case.
You want to tell me bi'ah with chuppah and kesef? We’re going to learn from the shifchah case. If it’s so strong that it should work even without chuppah, how could you do that in the case of bi'ah? There are two actions, intercourse and chuppah, and money is only giving money. How could you learn one from the other? The kal vachomer rests on the contention that intercourse is weaker than money, because from the Kena'ani you see that she eats with money and not with this. But that’s only if you tell me intercourse permits eating terumah for sure; then their money should also do it. But if intercourse only works with chuppah and money has no chuppah, you’re taking apples and oranges, not the same level of category.
So you must want to compare the raw facts: is kesef better than bi'ah with no chuppah? No chuppah at all? Yes, kesef is better, I see, because kesef makes the shifchah Kena'anit (Canaanite maidservant) eat, and she can eat, while bi'ah does not work. So bi'ah works to make the married woman eat, yes; kesef for a shifchah also works if there is no chuppah. Very good. Everything is on the same playing field. So I see from here that every time bi'ah works by itself and makes nisu'in, she should be able to eat. That’s why I say the kal vachomer is very good: bi'ah is better than kesef, and therefore, if kesef works for a shifchah, it should work for a woman.
Every time bi'ah only makes kiddushin, then why do the rabbis say, “I’m not sure if the money is going to make her eat”? I’ll learn that from bi'ah. We’re also not sure if she’s going to eat, because bi'ah only makes erusin. If erusin works, erusin works in both cases. So why are you so sure that she eats with bi'ah, and therefore the kal vachomer says that kesef should make her eat? They’re both only erusin. If you’re sure about one, you’re sure about the other. It must be that bi'ah effects nisu'in.
Rav Nachman says—no, the cases—I still make a kal vachomer, and the case he told me here is two things against money without chuppah. How can you compare the two? Still, I have a kal vachomer, and I maintain that it works. I’ll show you how the kal vachomer works. I’m using as my springboard that a man buys her only through cash. If he sleeps with her, he’s not going to make her eat. Even if he sleeps with her—if a guy says, “Come under with me,” and then he sleeps with her, is she going to eat? No. And yet, when he gives her money without chuppah, she eats.
So, for a regular woman, bi'ah after chuppah—bi'ah and chuppah together, bi'ah first and then chuppah. Rashi seems to say chuppah first, then bi'ah. It doesn’t matter. If you’re getting both, then kesef should also make her eat without a chuppah, because we’ll learn from kesef without a chuppah. So bi'ah with chuppah doesn’t work for a shifchah Kena'anit, yet kesef without chuppah works; and bi'ah by a regular woman with chuppah makes her eat for sure. Then kesef should make her eat without chuppah. That was his kal vachomer. Then he answered back and said to himself, “I’m right halachically, but what will I do?” Like you said, Ulla is the one who said that she may bring it to her family.
So now, what did Ben Bagbag do? How could he argue on this kal vachomer? The kal vachomer is so strong. Ben Bagbag holds that, halachically, kesef does not make the man eat. He can’t learn kesef for a maidservant from the case of a woman. Why not? Because when you buy her, you do the whole thing. What do you have to do to buy her? Give money. There’s nothing left; that’s the final act. When you betroth a woman with money, you leave something else to do, which is nisu'in, chuppah, whatever you have to do. So it could be that money is different in this case. You can’t compare the two. They don’t compare. That’s one answer.
I have another answer to refute the proof from the Beraita. They knew that this lady should eat through kesef. We knew that. The question is about the Rabbanan: should she ever be allowed to eat without nisu'in? The reported ruling is that an arusah, a betrothed woman, eats terumah, and they’re not concerned about simpon (defect).
There’s a new problem we’re going to see later. A Kohen married an Israelite woman. He gives her the money; she should just eat. The question is: what happens when he takes her to the bedroom and unfortunately sees a blemish on her? That’s a simpon. He says, “Hey, I’m out, I’m out.” Sometimes it could be mekach ta'ut (mistaken transaction). If she was eating terumah when she was betrothed, in erusin, aren’t you afraid of that? So it must be that they’re not worried. Are you sure they say she eats terumah medioraita, and they’re not worried about this? The Rabbanan of simpon—don’t you think they say it like me? And I know you’re such a baki (expert), an expert in all the things of Torah. You have to call my home, you have to call my home.
Cohabitation does not work to make you eat. When you buy the maidservant, you’re not afraid that she has a blemish. So you see they’re not afraid. You buy her, and you make her eat terumah. This Kohen’s cohabitation makes her eat terumah—kiddushin through cohabitation. But the Torah law—he’s not even going to say it, even the Rabbanan. Listen to this: if you sleep with this woman, she is betrothed. If a man is going to sleep with her, don’t you think he will probably find out what she is before he sleeps with her? He was there before, actually. It says that with a fully married woman, you’re not worried about a simpon. There’s a terminology. It’s a little bit like a mashal (parable), a good word. When you take a cup to drink something, don’t you look in the cup first to make sure it’s clean and there are no bugs in it? Okay, yeah. A person doesn’t drink from a cup unless he checks it out. “Drink from a cup” is a euphemism; that’s the word. The guy’s not going to take the lady unless he checked her out. So if he’s doing bi'ah with her for kiddushin, he had it checked out at the mikveh. He called the mikveh lady, or his relatives made sure to go to the bathhouse with her and check it out.
So if that’s true, when he marries her through money, she should also be able to eat, and don’t worry about a simpon. So that was his question: what about simpon? What does Ben Bagbag answer? “Simpon ba'avadim letle” (There is no defect clause for slaves). What—you’re basing yourself on a shifchah Kena'anit? When you acquire her, do you care what blemishes she has underneath? No. What do you care? You can see an external blemish, like a crooked arm or foot, before you buy her. If it’s a hidden mum (blemish), what does he care? He wants it to work. He doesn’t care what’s underneath. He’s going to be a thief or a kidnapper. You know every slave is a thief. It’s coming to him. Every time you fall asleep, you know that maybe she’s a robber or someone sentenced to death. A very strange thing to have found out about. There’s a call; the person would have known about it.
Therefore, since he knows about it, you don’t have to worry about it. Answer just one thing. We’ll see this tomorrow. We have to remember. We’ll have to see tomorrow how to understand the difference between them.