QUESTION: The Gemara cites a dispute between Ula and Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah about the reason why the Rabanan decreed that a woman who is betrothed to a Kohen may not eat Terumah. According to Ula, the Rabanan were concerned that she might feed the Terumah to her brothers and sisters (who are not Kohanim) since she is still living in her father's home. According to Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah, the Rabanan were afraid of "Simpon" (a "revocation" of the marriage) -- the husband might discover later that the woman has a blemish and the Kidushin will be rendered a "Mekach Ta'us" (an acquisition in error). The betrothal will be annulled retroactively and the woman will have transgressed the Isur d'Oraisa of a Zar who eats Terumah.

The Gemara says that the practical difference between these two opinions are the cases of "Kibel, Masar, v'Halach" (literally, "he accepted, he gave over, and he went"). RASHI explains that "Masar v'Halach" refers to when the father "gave over" his daughter to the husband, or when the father's emissaries "went" with the emissaries of the husband when they brought the Kalah to the husband's home. In such cases, there remains a fear of "Simpon" (because the man does not fully examine the Kalah for blemishes until he starts to support her), but there is no fear that she will feed Terumah to her siblings because she has already left her father's home.

The Gemara later concludes that nowadays the Kalah may not eat Terumah until the Chupah is performed, not like the original enactment mentioned in the Mishnah. This is because of "Simpon," since the husband does not finish examining her for blemishes until the Chupah.

According to the Gemara's conclusion, even after the father gives over his daughter to the emissaries of the husband, she still cannot eat Terumah because of the concern for "Simpon." However, in the Gemara earlier (48b) Rav Asi states that from the time of the Mesirah (giving over) of the woman to the emissaries of the husband the woman may eat Terumah (Rav there disagrees). How is the view of Rav Asi there to be reconciled with the Gemara here?

(a) The TOSFOS YESHANIM (in the margin of the Gemara) writes that Rav and Rav Asi (48b) disagree about whether or not the husband checks for blemishes at the time the father gives over his daughter to the husband's emissaries (as Tosfos says on 48b, DH Rav Asi). The Gemara here follows the opinion of Rav. Rav Asi maintains that the husband does check for blemishes at the time the father gives over his daughter to the husband's emissaries, and therefore Mesirah ("Masar") will not be a practical difference between the reasons given by Ula and Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah. (See Tosfos there who raises a question on this approach.)

(b) TOSFOS in Kidushin (11a, DH Kibel) and the RITVA here explain that the words "Masar v'Halach" are not two different cases, but they refer to a single case. The case to which they refer is where the father gave over ("Masar") his daughter to the emissaries of the husband, and then the father went along with them ("Halach") to the husband's home. (This explains why it says "Halach" in the singular form ("he went") and not "Halchu" in the plural ("they went").) Since the father is traveling with the husband's emissaries, the woman cannot eat Terumah even according to Rav Asi.

(c) The RA'AVAD cited by the RASHBA explains that all three words describe a single case. "Kibel" means that the father accepted the money of Kidushin, and "Masar v'Halach" means that immediately upon receiving the Kidushin the father gave his daughter over to the husband, who took her with him to his home. There is a fear of "Simpon" because the husband obviously did not have enough time to check for blemishes.

Accordingly, it is possible that Rav Asi maintains that she may eat Terumah only when the father gives her over to the husband after a period of time long enough for the husband to have examined her for blemishes.

(d) RASHI (48b) suggests the simplest answer. He writes that Rav and Rav Asi, who argue about whether the Kalah may eat Terumah from the time of the Mesirah, also argue about the reason why the Rabanan prohibited an Arusah from eating Terumah. Rav agrees with Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah that the reason she may not eat Terumah is the concern for "Simpon," and that is why she remains prohibited from eating Terumah after Mesirah. Rav Asi agrees with Ula that the reason she may not eat Terumah is the concern that she might feed her siblings Terumah, and thus once she has left her father's home she may eat Terumah because there is no fear that she will feed her siblings.

Although the Gemara concludes that nowadays a Kalah may not eat Terumah until the Chupah because of "Simpon" (and not because of the fear that she might feed Terumah to her siblings), a Tana in Kidushin (10b) says that the reason an Arusah may not eat Terumah until the Chupah is because she might feed her siblings and not only because of "Simpon" (see PNEI YEHOSHUA on 48b and SHITAH MEKUBETZES there). Although she normally eats what her Chasan gives her in a separate section of the house, there is still a concern that she might feed her siblings (even after twelve months have passed).

However, this answer is problematic. According to Rashi's explanation, "Halach" means that the emissaries of the father went along with the emissaries of the husband. How can this case be a practical difference between Ula and Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah? In such a case, even Rav Asi -- who follows the view of Ula that there is a concern that she will feed her siblings Terumah -- maintains that she cannot eat Terumah. If the emissaries of the father went with the emissaries of the husband, all Amora'im agree that she cannot eat Terumah until she is formally given over through Mesirah to the emissaries of the husband. How can Rashi say that there is no fear that she might feed her siblings Terumah in a case of "Halach"? (PNEI YEHOSHUA 48b, and REBBI AKIVA EIGER here)

To answer this question, it is necessary to address another question on Rashi's explanation. How can Rashi say that in a case of "Halach," where the emissaries of the father went with the emissaries of the husband, there is no concern that she will feed Terumah to her siblings because they are not with her? According to that reasoning, every time she walks out of her father's home without her siblings she should be permitted to eat Terumah! This obviously is not the law, since it is assumed that she is going to return to the home and eat again with her siblings, and thus she is prohibited from eating Terumah all of the time. The same should apply to a case where the emissaries of the father went with the emissaries of the husband. Perhaps the emissaries of the father, in whose custody he put his daughter, will turn back and return the daughter to her father's home. In the case of "Masar" this is not a problem, since the Kalah has already been given over to the husband and she is now under his guardianship and cannot return to live in her father's home. However, while she is still in the guardianship of her father she should be prohibited to eat Terumah. (See He'oros b'Maseches Kesuvos for a similar question in the name of RAV Y. S. ELYASHIV shlit'a.)

The answer to this question may be as follows. Rashi does not mean that she is permitted to eat Terumah from the moment the emissaries of the father walk away with the emissaries of the husband. She remains prohibited to eat Terumah at that point since they might turn around and bring her back to her father's home. Only after the emissaries of the father give her over to the emissaries of the husband may she eat Terumah, because she now is in the husband's domain.

Why does Rashi write that from the time the emissaries of the father depart with the emissaries of the husband, she already may eat Terumah? The answer is that Rashi understands that the father's emissaries' act of giving her over to the emissaries of the husband shows that her departure from her father's home was final, and thus retroactive1y she may eat Terumah from that point.

If, practically, she cannot actually eat Terumah from that point (since she cannot eat retroactively!), what difference does it make to say that she may eat Terumah from the time she departs with the emissaries of the father and the emissaries of the husband? The practical difference might be in a case in which the woman ate Terumah after the emissaries of the father left with the emissaries of the husband but before they gave her over to the emissaries of the husband. If she was prohibited mid'Rabanan from eating Terumah, she would have to pay restitution of "Keren v'Chomesh" (the principal plus a fifth of the value of the Terumah) like any non-Kohen who eats Terumah. If, however, she becomes permitted retroactively to eat Terumah, she does not have to pay restitution if she improperly ate Terumah before she was handed over to the emissaries of the husband.

It is now clear why Rav Asi states that she is permitted to eat Terumah from the time of Mesirah. Rav Asi refers to when she is permitted to eat Terumah l'Chatchilah. The Gemara here, on the other hand, says that as soon as she goes with the emissaries of the father to be given to the emissaries of the husband, b'Di'eved she may eat Terumah from the time she has been given over to the emissaries of the husband.

Why does Rashi explain the Gemara this way? Why does he not explain that "Halach" means that the emissaries of the father gave her over to the emissaries of the husband? Why does he say that they went with the emissaries of the husband? The answer is that Rashi understands that if "Halach" means that the emissaries of the father gave her over to the emissaries of the husband, there would be no reason for the Gemara to mention "Masar v'Halach" as two different cases. If she is permitted to eat Terumah in both cases because she has been given over to the husband or to his emissaries, it does not make a difference who gave her over, her father or his emissaries. That is why Rashi learns that the case of "Halach" refers to before she was given over to the emissaries of the husband. (M. Kornfeld)