QUESTION: The Gemara cites a Beraisa that states that if the father went with the husband's emissaries, or if the father's emissaries went with the husband's emissaries, or if the Kalah owned a Chatzer on the road and she entered the Chatzer with the Chasan in order to sleep there, it is not considered a Chupah or a "Mesirah la'Ba'al." If, however, the father gave over his daughter to the husband's emissaries, or his emissaries gave her over to the husband's emissaries, or if the Chasan owned a Chatzer on the road and they entered the Chatzer for the sake of Nisu'in ("l'Shem Nisu'in"), from that time onward the husband inherits her Nedunya if she dies because it is considered a "Mesirah la'Ba'al" (which is considered a partial Chupah).

The Gemara explains that the Beraisa refers to a case in which they entered the Chatzer without specifying the purpose for which they entered. The Beraisa teaches that if the Chatzer is hers, we assume that she entered in order to sleep and not for the sake of Nisu'in. If the Chatzer is his, we assume that she entered the Chatzer for the sake of Chupah and Nisu'in.

It seems that the Beraisa is discussing only a Kinyan of "Mesirah la'Ba'al" and not a complete Chupah. (This is also Rashi's intention in DH Ha Stama; see VILNA GA'ON EH 55:9.) This is clear for a number of reasons. First, the Beraisa implies that when the Chatzer is hers, when they enter her Chatzer and specify that they are entering for the sake of Nisu'in, it is a valid Chupah. Why should it be a valid Chupah if he walks into her Chatzer? If the husband is not bringing the woman into his own domain, how can it be a Chupah?

Second, the Beraisa says that if the Chatzer is his, then he acquires her as his wife with regard to inheriting her but not with regard to Terumah (that is, if he is a Kohen, she may not yet eat Terumah). If, however, it is a complete Chupah, he should acquire her for Terumah as well!

On the other hand, if the Chasan and Kalah enter the Chasan's own Chatzer for the sake of Nisu'in, why should it be classified as merely "Mesirah la'Ba'al"? Why is it not a full-fledged Chupah?

ANSWER: The PNEI YEHOSHUA explains that "Chupah" occurs when she enters the man's domain in order to remain together with him, as man and wife, permanently. When they enter his domicile on the road, it is not an act that represents permanent family life. It is a temporary act which does not show that she is becoming his wife. The VILNA GA'ON (EH 55:9) makes a similar distinction.

It seems that if the Chasan and Kalah seclude themselves in a room and sleep together there, even on the road, it should certainly be a sign of permanent relationship. Rashi here (DH Ha Stama), however, writes that the Beraisa means that he walks into the lodging with her and stays with her for a moment, but not necessarily overnight. She intends to sleep there and he is just politely escorting her. It could be that the door is open as well while they are together so that it is not Yichud. That is why it works only as "Mesirah la'Ba'al" and not as Chupah.

OPINIONS: The Gemara discusses a situation of "Nichnesah l'Chupah v'Lo Nivalah," where a woman entered the Chupah but is still a Besulah. (Apparently, there are witnesses who observed her from the time of Chupah onwards and testify that she is still a Besulah.) The Halachah is that Nisu'in may be effected through Bi'ah (see Rashi, DH Ha Stama, and Kidushin 10a), but there is something else called "Chupah" which is a form of Nisu'in which does not involve Bi'ah. What exactly is this "Chupah" and how is it done?

(a) The RAN (1a of the pages of the Rif) notes the opinion of some Rishonim that Chupah means Yichud, where the man and woman seclude themselves together. The RAMBAM (Hilchos Ishus 10:1), who seems to be of this opinion, takes it even further and writes that the Chasan "must bring her into his house, seclude himself with her, and separate her for himself." The Rambam (10:2 and 10:6) adds that Chupah serves to acquire her to him only when, at the time of Chupah, the woman is Re'uyah l'Bi'ah (fit for the husband to have relations with her), and not if she is prohibited to her husband (such as a woman who is a Nidah at the time of Chupah).

1. The Ran points out that the source for this opinion might be the Gemara in Kesuvos (2a) which discusses the case of a woman who is forced to delay the Chupah because she became a Nidah. Why does the fact that she is a Nidah prevent her from the ceremony of Chupah? According to the Rambam, it is clear why Chupah cannot be made with a Nidah: since Chupah comprises Yichud, it is prohibited for the Chasan to seclude himself with the Nidah (4a), and, furthermore, she is not Re'uyah l'Bi'ah, and thus Chupah will not work even if he does seclude himself with her.

2. A further source for this definition of Chupah may be the Gemara later (56a) which discusses whether a Chupah serves as a Kinyan if it is not Ra'uy l'Bi'ah (such as when the Kalah is a Nidah). The Gemara leaves the question unanswered ("Teiku"). The Rambam, therefore, should be justified in ruling stringently, that the Chupah is not effective if it is not Ra'uy l'Bi'ah.

3. Another source may be the Mishnah in Nidah (44b) which says that only when a girl is three years old does her Nisu'in to a Kohen permit her to eat Terumah. As Rashi in Sanhedrin (55b) explains, when she is under the age of three Nisu'in to a Kohen cannot enable her to eat Terumah because she cannot have a Chupah nor perform Bi'ah to make a complete Nisu'in with the Kohen, as she is not yet Re'uyah l'Bi'ah.

(b) The RAN, however, presents strong proofs against this opinion.

1. He proves from the Gemara here that Chupah does not necessarily comprise Yichud. The Gemara describes a case of a woman who entered the Chupah but is still a Besulah. If Chupah is Yichud in which the man and woman secluded each other, how can it be known that she is still a Besulah? The Beraisa earlier (11b) also describes a woman whose husband performed Nisu'in with her and yet there are witnesses who testify that she did not seclude herself with him or live with him. It seems clear that there exists Chupah without Yichud.

2. The Ran proves from the Gemara in Yevamos (57b-58a) that Chupah performed with a woman who is not Re'uyah l'Bi'ah is nevertheless a valid Chupah. The Gemara there describes a Chupah performed by a Kohen Gadol with an Almanah, or a Kohen Hedyot with a Gerushah. The Gemara there quotes an opinion (which is the Halachah) that the Chupah takes effect, even though the woman is not Re'uyah l'Bi'ah since she is prohibited to him.

3. Others prove from the Mishnah here both that Chupah does not involve Yichud and that Chupah may be performed with a woman who is not fit for Bi'ah (such as with a girl less than three years old). The Mishnah describes the effects of "Mesiras ha'Av l'Sheluchei ha'Ba'al" -- the father's handing over of his daughter to the emissaries of the husband. A number of Amora'im rule that Mesirah accomplishes the same thing as Chupah, and thus the woman may even eat Terumah (if her husband is a Kohen) after the Mesirah.

Mesirah is clearly not Yichud, as it involves no seclusion. If Chupah requires Yichud, how can Mesirah accomplish a full Nisu'in according to any Amora? It must be that Chupah involves simply bringing the woman into the man's home, and that is why some Amora'im maintain that Mesirah accomplishes the same thing as Chupah (since it is the beginning of the transfer of the bride to the groom's home). (BEIS YAKOV, Kesuvos 2a; see also CHUPAS CHASANIM of the Sha'ar ha'Melech, #9.)

Moreover, why does the Mishnah say that Chupah does not allow a girl less than three years old to eat Terumah, according to the Amora'im who say that Mesirah allows the Kalah to eat Terumah? The Mishnah in Nidah apparently refers to a situation in which the three year old girl is married (which means that she is living together in a home alone with her husband). How can that accomplish any less than Mesiras ha'Av (RASHBA, Kidushin 10b)? It must be that the Chupah of the three year old indeed does take effect, even though she is not Re'uyah l'Bi'ah.

As for the Rambam's proofs (cited above) that Chupah must be Yichud and Ra'uy l'Bi'ah, the Ran and other Rishonim refute them all. The Gemara (2a) which discusses delaying a Chupah because the woman is a Nidah means simply that the groom may insist on making a Chupah later since he wants a Chupah after which Bi'ah will be permitted immediately. It does not mean that Chupah cannot be done with a woman to whom the groom is prohibited.

The Gemara (56a) which discusses whether Chupah works when it is not Ra'uy l'Bi'ah is not discussing whether Chupah takes effect with regard to Nisu'in when there is no "Chibas Bi'ah." Rather, it is clearly discussing whether the woman gets to keep the Tosefes (the additional money) which her husband added to the Kesuvah if the Chupah was not fit for Bi'ah. The Nisu'in, however, takes effect (Ran, 22b of the pages of the Rif, and other Rishonim).

When the Mishnah says that Nisu'in of a Kohen with a girl under the age of three does not allow her to eat Terumah, it does not mean that the Chupah does not make her the Kohen's wife. Rather, it means that in the case of such a young girl, the fear of "Simpon" applies even after her Chupah, since her husband does not fully examine her for blemishes until she reaches the age of three (TOSFOS to Yevamos 57b, DH Nises; see also MISHNEH L'MELECH, Hilchos Ishus 3:11, and Chupas Chasanim #7).

In defense of the view of the Rambam, who says that Chupah is Yichud, it may be suggested that the Rambam does not mean that Chupah requires a total Yichud, where the man and woman seclude themselves behind closed doors. Rather, the Rambam says that the man "must seclude himself with her and separate her for himself" -- the Yichud must be just enough to show that he is taking her for himself, but it does not necessarily need to be done behind closed doors. If he brings her into his home, even if the doors are open and people can see inside, it is called a Chupah according to the Rambam. This is indeed the way the BEIS ME'IR (EH 55:1) interprets the Rambam's words. (See also Insights to Kesuvos 57:1.) This explains how a woman can enter the Chupah, according to the Rambam, and still have witnesses that she did not have relations. This also answers the question from the Gemara here, why the father's Mesirah to the emissaries of the husband can accomplish the same as Chupah even though it is not Yichud. Alternatively, even if Mesiras ha'Av does effect a Kinyan for everything, it still does not accomplish the same as Chupah, as will be discussed later (see Insights to Kesuvos 49:1).

With regard to the Rambam's view that the woman must be Re'uyah l'Bi'ah for the Chupah to take effect, and that Chupah does not work for a Nidah even though it does work for a Kohen Gadol who marries an Almanah, the LECHEM MISHNEH (Hilchos Ishus 10:2) suggests that there is a difference between a woman who is presently not Re'uyah l'Bi'ah and a woman who will never be Re'uyah l'Bi'ah. If he marries a woman who will never be Re'uyah l'Bi'ah (such as a Kohen Gadol who marries an Almanah), the Chupah brings them together as much as the marriage can bring them together, because he will only be able to live with her b'Isur. In contrast, when a man marries a Nidah or a girl less than three years old, although at present she is not Re'uyah l'Bi'ah the husband intends to be together with his wife later when she becomes Re'uyah l'Bi'ah. Since right now the woman is not Re'uyah l'Bi'ah, the Chupah does not bring them together to the same degree that the marriage eventually will. Therefore, the Chupah is not valid until she is fully ready for Bi'ah.

How do the Rambam -- and Rashi, who seems to agree with the Rambam on this point -- answer the question of the Rashba: why can a girl under three not eat Terumah after the Chupah, if even Mesirah allows a woman to eat Terumah (although it is not a preparation for Be'ilah)? If there is no cause for concern after the Mesirah that the Kalah will share the Terumah with her brothers and sisters (Rashi DH v'Rav Asi), certainly there should be no cause for such concern when the Kalah (who is under the age of three) moves into the house of her Chasan. (We cannot answer that Rav Asi permits her to eat Terumah only according to the Mishnah Rishonah (see Mishnah, 57a), since it is clear that Rav Asi is giving a Halachic ruling, and the Halachah is in accordance with the Mishnah Acharonah.)

Perhaps Rav Asi and those who rule that Mesirah allows the woman to eat Terumah maintain that the type of Nisu'in which does not allow a girl under three to eat Terumah is Nisu'in of Bi'ah (in the father's house, without Mesirah). If, however, the father hands her over to the husband, if she enters the husband's house l'Shem Chupah certainly she is able to eat Terumah, even though she is not Re'uyah l'Bi'ah. (M. Kornfeld)